Men in house said occupied by gays attack Jamaica Observer news team

Hopelessness, rage and indeed what appears to be fatalism once again play out in destructive and anti social behaviour of homeless MSM in Kingston ....... the monster has been growing

Let us NOT forget that there are other populations across the island

It was February of this year I posted: And we continue to reap the world-wind for not addressing homelessness when it was manageable  and as for the anti social behaviour I gave a layman's look from August 2011 here: 

The Problematic “Battyman Entitlement” phenom, homelessness & LGBT safe spaces

Before you read the actual news piece from the paper today please bear in mind the following; the way the men are described by the author of the Observer story as "the gays" is instructive, anyway the anti social behaviour has simply moved northwards from its original jurisdiction in the business district of New Kingston where it caused repeated problems and mainstream media attention but following the hushed eviction of the two main representative agencies JFLAG and JASL who have been accused of abandoning the men and at whose former premises the men ended up retreating after the police and local authorities crackdown on their squatting activities in up-scale neighbourhoods the month of May seems to be a very bad month for MSM homelessness on many fronts some of which I will get into after the excerpted story from the Observer which I implore you to read carefully.

as more proof of the northward geographical movement of the population see: Cross-Dressers Not Deserving Of Sympathy? (Gleaner article)

also

the infamous Trafalgar Park nearing the Golden Triangle

Star News sensationalizes male commercial sex worker issues .............

A Neighbour's take on the Homeless MSM New Kgn matter

Some new cases: More MSM teetering on homelessness

February 2013Street MSM Stone J-FLAG – After Being Cleared From Gov’t Property, Homosexuals Launch Assault

now to the Observer's piece:

"Men in house said occupied by gays attack Observer news team"  

"A Jamaica Observer news team was yesterday attacked by alleged gay men who have taken up residence at a house in the up-scale Barbican community of Millsborough Avenue in St Andrew.

The news team had gone to speak to residents after receiving a report that police had removed an unruly group of gay men who had taken up residence in the unoccupied home.

The gays only retreated after the photographer managed to enter the vehicle which drove off. However, no one was hurt and the vehicle suffered no damage.

Residents of Millsborough have been complaining that the gay men have been behaving in an unbecoming manner and have been making their lives miserable.

They also complained that the men have attracted the owners of high-end vehicles as their clients and have been setting an unwanted example for the children in their neighbourhood.

"Whenever a gay man gets hurt or killed, even if it is at the hands of other gay men, you hear all kinds of fancy statements being released by J-FLAG (the Jamaica Forum for Lesbian, All-sexuals and Gays). Where are they now that some of their own are infringing on our rights? It is another example that J-FLAG has been trying to paint Jamaicans as homophobic but, if we were killing gays as they claim, would these men be able to come and destroy our decent community for months without being attacked?" one female resident.

The residents said have made numerous reports to the Matilda's Corner Police Station but officers, they claimed, said their hands were tied because the owner of the unoccupied house — a businessman — has not come forward to give a statement that the gay men have been trespassing on his property.

"One of them came and made a report that he was assaulted by one of his kind. He told us he got permission to stay there and allowed the rest to join him," a policeman at the Matilda's Corner police station said.

Head of the St Andrew Central Police Division Senior Superintendent Fitz Bailey told the Jamaica Observer that after the publication of an article in last Sunday's paper entitled 'Residents say gay men take over Barbican house', the police had forcibly removed the men from the premises.

"We went there on Sunday and ordered them out. We checked back on Monday and no one was there but, it seems that they have been creeping back in. We face a challenge in that the house is not secured, the locks have been sawn off so they have easy access," Bailey told the Jamaica Observer.

A policeman from the Matilda's Corner station said the unruly band of gays are among men who gather at the intersection of Knutsford Boulevard and Grenada Crescent in New Kingston at nights and indulge in male prostitution.

"They openly solicit customers and behave in a most disgusting manner at nights," the policeman said."

Read more: HERE

ENDS

JFLAG's ED Dane Lewis alongside Ian McKnight former JASL Board Chairman at an IDAHO 2013 symposium at the Courtleigh Hotel on Homelessness (the homeless men were not included or invited)

The exclusion or lack of presence as some describe it of the homeless men in the meantime by Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG on May 17 International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, IDAHOT during a homelessness symposium has not gone down well with some straight allied advocates and even older LGBT activists locally and abroad with a strong rebuke from the former Programmes Manager of JFLAG itself Mr Gareth Henry chastising the present management for becoming a dividing factor in the community via such a bizarre decision, tersely worded comments have been exchanged on social media platforms where the individuals interact and withdrawals from pages and groups in a huff have also occurred. Not even the ongoing Supreme Court tolerance ad trial as expedited by the claimant and gay lawyer Maurice Tomlinson could cool the tempers which to date are still flaring. Today is day three of that trial which is covered as best as I can on GLBTQJA and GLBTQ Jamaica both on blogger - DAY 1 and DAY 2.

The impasse in the meantime prompted the Executive Director of JFLAG Mr Dane Lewis to issue a statement trying to explain away the obvious discrimination and even the wording of the document has left more questions than answers, SEE MORE HERE on that. The refusal of JFLAG to properly communicate updates on what it is doing on behalf of the community is also becoming a major concern yet again and the poor program development to meet this long-standing homelessness challenge that I saw from my time at JFLAG while inadvertently doubling as Admin/Finance and Crisis Intervention Officer in 2008 to 2010 was clear as crystal. This short clip from a Word Focus report tells a piece of the story.

back track to 2010: The Quietus ......... The Safe House Project Closes

A temporary solution was found to address the far more docile group of homeless men then in 2008 to respond to the men who for the most part were part of a mass displacement (there were others before in smaller numbers) that occurred after a gay party DVD mysteriously found its way in the public domain for sale thus exposing persons in attendance thus began the free fall then today's headline. Hours and hours of consultations and planning towards the formation of the Safe House Pilot Project under Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, JASL as JFLAG was not financially prepared to take on the issue took place and the plan included collaboration with the pilot towards a final solution. The project could have been tweaked if there was any real interest in addressing the lives interrupted, instead the easy way out was chosen and the belief that the "problem" would have gone underground.

I know my older readers may be used to the happenings but it must be made clear that these happenings today could have been avoided in some part if not for a head strong JASL board and personalities who contributed to the bizarre and dubious decision to end the shelter's activities and ironically both JASL and JFLAG have now found themselves homeless too since April as they were given marching orders by their landlord owing to the problems with the men and other factors. Here are the original posts I did on the ultimatum and the closure of the then residential facility in 2009/10 for some historical perspective on this, the monster was creeping up the hill a while now:

Homeless MSM to feel the pinch as JASL issues ultimatum

The Homeless Project, the meeting and more 

Just days ago the same paper carried this: Residents say gays take over Barbican house …………………

and before that there was this: Marauding homosexuals and J-FLAG (Observer Editorial) ……………………

Where will this end knowing all the signs were in the making some six years before?

Why has it been allowed to reach this stage?

Is it that JFLAG is not really interested in this part of the struggle and is more attracted to the limelight of buggery repeals and debates?

JFLAG and its supporters complain that they alone cannot handle everything yet they refuse to entertain criticisms as they seem them as a threat of some sort to what we are yet to understand and as evidenced with the recent aforementioned impasse, there is a feeling that ideas from "others" are not viable enough and words such as "skewed" were used by the ED himself in describing some good suggestions by a straight-allied voice and yet the very powers that be inside the belly of the agency are accused of stalling attempts by other persons of starting their own arms to address some of the community matters. Territorialism here folks? Many solutions lie untouched and archived that have been worked on by various ordinary LGBT folks serving and volunteering on committees yet they are not enacted and then we wonder why volunteer retention is at a all time low or why the dissent in the community has been rising steadily?

Let's split justice for a minute, one of the men who was in prison for a while had penned his thoughts by hand in 2011 and I was so moved I had to share them .................. page 1 captioned. 

click HERE: From the pen of one of our homeless brothers ........

what has caused this set to snap is still unclear

The community based assisted living and or informal crisis intervention if you will is not nearly enough to address the growing numbers of young men who are made displaced and subsequently homeless with the commensurate psycho social support/work to back it up so that persons can work towards some independence instead we see fatalism play out in destructive and anti social behaviours repeatedly, I for one cannot afford to house anyone here in my home as I have done before my income it not enough to assist that way again although I am trying some fund raising activities. I have suggested and tried to appeal to the conscience of those who were concerned to open up their doors to assist in some small way via this audio post Some considerations ..... would you assist someone who has been displaced ??? but given the challenges that have become so pronounced that I have rescinded the call somewhat although some hope came recently via this post Community based crisis sheltering is still an option. Deep mistrust though has led many influentials to back off and a recent violent attack allegedly by two of the men on a popular party promoter has just made matters worse now this Observer story today. Even the remote assistance of providing meals by persons has been slowed significantly party due to the anti social presentations of the men and financial reasons too for some. JFLAG also admitted in that previously mentioned statement by the ED that its feeding program has also been discontinued as they have difficulty coordinating the delivery due to "difficulties coordinating it without a main office in addition to funding constraints." The very few who recover successfully are usually unheard of or they tend not to want to talk about their journey so as to act as inspiration for the present crop and the leadership from JFLAG frankly on this from day one is much to be desired. JFLAG also had told us via that November 2012 town hall meeting and the accompanying 2012 - 2015 strategic plan document that a space was identified and a start up date was to have been December 1, 2012 implying confirmation yet it turned out we were lied to as the deal was not even half way in negotiations and in the final analysis the zoning laws would not allow such a facility to operate plus other factors and concerns the managers of the site had about the intended shelter. I was optimistic but guarded about the news then only to be disappointed in the end. True tolerance has to be espoused before we go demanding it of others.

see: Some Good News on the homeless front 

see also the discussion on TVJ at the time (October 2012) on the issue where the shelter was mentioned

for more information see the Homeless MSM in Jamaica tab immediately below for all the previous posts, February podcast on the men, posts from GLBTQ Jamaica HERE plus from my Wordpress blog HERE  The talkshow circuit has blown up since the news appeared in the paper today and all kinds of condemnation coupled with the vitriol on the tolerance ad trial now on in the Supreme Court and the anti gay voices on the use of the word "Homophobia"

Prominent attorney Bert Samuels says the residents of the Millsborough Avenue area may have to endure the homeless MSM a little longer as they cannot simply move the homeless men from the previously unoccupied property, the law protects them from being forcibly removed ........... "I can't as a neighbour go to court to have them removed ........... you can go and occupy after a number of years of undisturbed occupation apply for title." he was speaking on Hotline earlier today.

Meanwhile the Press Association of Jamaica has written to JFLAG expressing their condemnation of the reported attack President Jenni Campbell indicated there is no indication that the journalist attack the men  or sought to invade their privacy she said the fact that the team was viciously pursued and stoned must be seen as a direct attack on the press, Miss Campbell said the association has encouraged its members to make an official report to the police, the PAJ's letter to JFLAG's Executive Director asks that he inform the persons JFLAG seeks to represent to desist from interfering with journalists in the line of duty and educate its members of the critical role the free press plays in a democracy. The trouble I have with this is that the Observer published two photos showing members of the group which I think is not legal as it was done on private property and we do not have the benefit of the men's side as to why they took such action. I make reference to an incident where I was a DJ at a party in February 12, 2010 persons who were opposed to the event and homosexuality attempted to take photos of persons entering and exiting the premises as well as from a vantage point of the overhanging tree to the property, I sought some legal advice and I was advised that photos taken in a private space and used inappropriately can trigger an action in common law preceded via a warning letter to the suspected person. There are not many test cases in this department. See High Drama as Homophobes attempt to disrupt and picket party

UPDATE June 3, 2013

Unruly gays back with a vengeance ...............

Peace and tolerance.

H

Buggery Law challenges & overlooked judicial solutions

Another challenge to the buggery law has come the third or fourth if one were counting and will take place apparently in June when the case as filed by Javed Jaghai who is still a part of the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians Allsexuals and Gays, JFLAG who only days ago again hit its own wicket by excluding some homeless MSM from an International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, IDAHOT event held on May 17th at a local hotel symposium on homelessness with a community backlash the likes of which never before seen. Thankfully the real issue of the buggery law and privacy on one hand is finally going to be addressed as I have long contended the lobby has drifted too far via secularism, humanism and atheism (Javed is an atheist) with other side issues from the germane matter of simply buggery and whether I as an adult can privately practice with consent anal sex with another partner (male or female for that matter) but I am concerned about the Savings clause issue as had been pointed out by other legal minds.

Yesterday the Gleaner carried a piece regarding the challenge:

New legal bid launched to protect gays right to privacy

Barbara Gayle, Justice Coordinator

Another legal challenge has been filed against the country's buggery law.Gay-rights activist Javed Saunja Jaghai has gone to the Supreme Court seeking changes to ensure that consenting male adults do not face criminal charges for buggery.
Jaghai is seeking the go ahead to take his case to the Constitutional Court for a declaration that the private sexual activities between consenting males must be excluded from the Offences Against the Person Act.

If he is successful, it would mean that the right to privacy - as contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2011 - will include the right of two homosexual men to engage in intercourse in privacy without facing the risk of being charged with a criminal offence.

A case-management conference will be held next month in chambers at the Supreme Court.The attorney general has been named as a defendant in the matter.
Although Jaghai is seeking a declaration that private sexual activities between consenting males be excluded from the Offences Against the Person Act, he is also seeking an order that the act will continue to govern non-consensual acts and those which takes place with males under the age of 16.

In documents filed in court, Jaghai says he is a homosexual man and a citizen of Jamaica.

He disclosed that he was evicted from his house by his landlord on the alleged basis that his homosexuality would result in engaging in intimate acts with other men on the premises.He said the landlord had considered such acts as illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act.
Section 76 of that act makes it an offence for two men to be engaged in sexual activities.
The maximum sentence is 10 years' imprisonment.
Section 77 forbids such sexual acts for which the maximum sentence is seven years, while Section 79 of the act forbids gross indecency between men, for which the maximum sentence is two years.

negative effects of current law

In the court document, Jaghai states that the current law has negative effects on his daily life as well as the lives of other gay men."These provisions place the claimant, as a gay man, at risk of being evicted from his premises or arrested, prosecuted and convicted simply because he seeks to engage in sexual conduct that is integral to the expression of his identity and is carried out in a sphere of private intimacy," said Jaghai in his claim.

He argued further that because of the law, he is forced to deny his identity or contravene the law.

According to Jaghai, the fear of criminal sanctions impedes him, and may impede other homosexuals from accessing public-health facilities geared towards HIV and AIDS.

He contends further that the Constitution guarantees him the rights which were overwhelmingly approved by both political parties in 2011, and that includes the right to privacy.

Jaghai further argues that the right to privacy or the right to be left alone should be seen not simply as a negative right to occupy a private space free from government intrusion, "but as a right to get on with your life, express your personality and make fundamental decisions about your intimate relationships - which do not harm anyone else - without being penalized".

He has also listed in his affidavit instances in which men who were engaged in private and consensual activities have been prosecuted and convicted.

The Government is named as the defendant because the claimant contends that to date the Government has not given an undertaking that it will repeal the sections of the Offences Against the Person Act under which homosexuals can be charged.

He contends that the Government has violated and continues to violate his right to privacy and equality before the law as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.In February, the United States-based advocacy group AIDS-Free World reported that it had filed a similar suit on behalf of Jaghai.
The group asked the court to determine if the anti-sodomy law breaches rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which was passed into law in 2011.

That matter is scheduled to be mentioned on June 25.

Two homosexual Jamaicans have also mounted a legal challenge against the laws which criminalize the act of homosexuality, on the basis that they are unconstitutional and promotes homophobia throughout the Caribbean.

They have taken the matter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is modeled on the European Court of Human Rights to which Jamaica is not a full member.

While any ruling made by that court would be only advisory, it would send a strong message of international disapproval of Jamaica's buggery laws.

ENDS

Attorney at Law and lecturer at the University of the west Indies Law faculty Anika Gray had suggested several routes to a judicial solution to the privacy issue and the savings clause regarding sections 13(12) and 18 of the Jamaican Charter of Rights and Freedoms which in 2011 repealed the Bill of Rights chapter of the Jamaican Constitution. We have had other such suggestions by other eminent persons but for the most part the gay lobby/advocacy structures have ignored them it seems and are more exploring their own strategies than embracing that of others. Miss Gray also wrote then that The Jamaican State's complicity in perpetuating homophobia goes much deeper than the former PM's statement. The great bastions of state bigotry are sections 13(12) and 18 of the charter. These two sections immunize from constitutional challenge existing laws that 

(1) criminalize sexual relations between men and 
(2) preclude legal recognition of homosexual unions, respectively.

They are referred to in the Commonwealth Caribbean as 'savings law' clauses. In Jamaica's case, existing laws are laws which were in existence before the charter came into force. For other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, existing laws are those which existed before the constitution of the particular country came into being.It would appear that the presence of the savings law clause in the charter is intended to prevent local courts from following in the footsteps of their counterparts in other parts of the world. For example, national courts in both the United States and South Africa have made great strides in protecting the human rights of homosexuals. The US Supreme Court, in 2003, declared a Texas sodomy law a violation of the individual's fundamental right to liberty and privacy.
More recently, the South African Constitutional Court, in 2006, found that excluding homosexual couples from the definition of marriage was a violation of the South African Constitution.

It is ironic that the charter which was meant to expand the scope of fundamental rights for Jamaican citizens has also been used to deny homosexuals legal protection for their lifestyle choices.It is, however, my contention that the findings of the Privy Council (PC) inRoodal v the State [2003] UKPC 78, and the dissenting judgment inBoyce and Joseph v R (2004) WIR 37, can be used to circumvent the debilitating effect of the savings law clause on a judicial review of Jamaica's buggery law.

Challenging institution

Savings law clauses, as far as they preclude judicial review of existing laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, challenge the principle of constitutional supremacy and rob the individual from enjoying the full benefits of the fundamental rights provisions. Thus, they have been a source of frustration for courts wishing to give a generous interpretation to the fundamental rights provisions of Commonwealth Caribbean constitutions.Nonetheless, the judiciary - more specifically, the Privy Council - has employed various methods of constitutional interpretation to avoid the limitations presented by savings law clauses. The most ingenious and, perhaps, controversial method was that employed by the PC in Roodal. In Roodal, the PC held that the savings law clause in the 1972 Trinidad and Tobago Constitution only applies where an existing law could not be brought into conformity with the Constitution through the use of the Constitution's modification clause.
From this starting point, the PC went on to find that Section 4 of the Trinidad and Tobago Offences Against the Person Act (TTOAPA), which authorized the mandatory death penalty, could be brought into conformity with the Constitution by making the death penalty discretionary. Thus, the savings law clause could not serve to hide Section 4 of the TTOAPA from judicial scrutiny.

Additionally, the dissenters in Boyce, when answering a similar question about the mandatory death penalty in Barbados, found that the wording of the savings law clause - and in particular the phrase 'nothing shall be held inconsistent with' - allowed the courts to exercise the power to modify the existing law. But only to the extent that the modification did not emasculate, void or render nugatory the existing law.

Sanitizing the buggery law

Currently, Section 76 of the Jamaican Offences Against the Person Act criminalize acts of buggery committed in both public and private, regardless of whether the participants are consenting adults. Courts in other jurisdictions and international human rights tribunal have found statutes of similar ilk to be in contravention of the right to privacy.

For example, the European Court of Human Rights in Dudgeon v the United Kingdom - 7525/76 [1981] ECHR 5 held that an Irish statute similar to Section 76 was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private life. In light of this jurisprudence, there can be no doubt that Section 76 is a violation of the right to privacy that is protected under Section 13(2) (j) (ii) of the Charter of Rights.

Notwithstanding, Section 13(12) of the charter prevents the court from declaring Section 76 as unconstitutional. The finding in Roodal and the dissenting judgment in Boyce help us to overcome this formidable legal obstacle. How is it to be done?The modification clause in the Jamaican Constitution should be used to narrow the ambit of Section 76 to cover only acts of buggery committed in public. By restricting the illegality to the public sphere, Section 76 is neither emasculated nor rendered void. It is instead 'constitutionalised'. The Constitution allows restriction on rights to protect public morals, but only to the extent that the limitation achieves a legitimate objective and does not excessively infringe the individual's rights.
As such, buggery, which is considered immoral, can be criminalized in order to protect the morality of the majority. Nonetheless, the suggested limitation is not excessive - as is the case with the present Section 76 - since homosexuals are allowed to practise their sexual activities in the privacy of their homes.

Advantages of Sanitisation

This approach has three distinct advantages. First, the views of the majority of Jamaicans, who find the act reprehensible, are respected; but not at the expense of the individual's right to privacy and liberty to engage in intimate, adult and consensual sexual activities. Second, it signals that the State will refrain from using the law to interfere with private consensual sexual activities between adults. This is especially where the sexual activity does not cause unlawful harm to the parties involved (see R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75). Finally, it demonstrates that the rights of minority groups can be protected, even in a constitutional democracy based on majoritarian rule.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the ruling in Roodal was overruled by the PC in Matthews v the State [2004] UKPC 33. In Matthews, the PC rejected the argument that the modification clause could be used to sidestep the clear intentions of the savings law, i.e. to protect all existing laws from any type of constitutional challenge including modification. They further held that any difficulty presented by the savings law clause must be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary. Thus, the principle from Roodal, as well as the position of the dissenters in Boyce, is not binding on Jamaican courts.

However, the decision in Matthews flies in the face of well-established principles which demand that: (1) the Bill of Rights provisions be treated as living instruments capable of growth and development over time; and (2) any restriction on fundamental rights, such as the savings law clause, must be given both a narrow and strict construction.Moreover, I agree whole-heartedly with Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead when he said that the Matthews decision leads to the court abdicating "its responsibility to ensure that the people of a country, including those least able to protect themselves, have the full measure of protection against the executive which a constitution exists to provide".

It is suggested that for these reasons, the PC should relinquish its position in Matthews and reaffirm the principles outlined in Roodal. Even if the PC cannot be prevailed upon to change its position, there is no obstacle to the Caribbean Court of Justice (soon to become our final appellate court, I hope) adopting the Roodal principle.

Conclusion

Dealing effectively with the disadvantaged position of homosexuals might require a legislative, rather than judicial, solution. But this is only if you want to wait another 10 to 15 years. Moreover, the constitutional issues arising from the buggery law are intimately tied to the presence of the savings law clauses in the Charter of Rights. To get rid of these will demand constitutional changes. This is another long and, might I add, sensitive process. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Christian lobby groups will ever allow Parliament to repeal the buggery law.In this case, the judicial solution offered by Roodal is not only more expedient but also opens the door for other unjust laws (such as those on abortion and marital rape exemption) to be successfully challenged.
Anika Gray is an attorney-at-law and tutor in the Faculty of Law, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and anika_gray@yahoo.co.uk.

I much prefer this route of the challenge(s) as opposed to the review as suggested by the current PM as that conscience vote can blow up in our faces being in mind how the PM prefaced that parliamentarians would consult their constituents and we all know the pandering situation in that regard. Below was Mrs Simpson Miller in December 2011 after the suggestion/debate on the election campaign.

Interesting times lie ahead if this present challenge goes to full trial.

also see:
Legal Notes - Homophobia and human rights abuses

PNP's Damion Crawford says it's highly unlikely buggery will be repealed

PNP's Damion Crawford on Homosexuality's legality .

PNP Wins ................Hope for LGBT People ???

The First-Ever Legal Challenge to Jamaica's Anti-Gay Laws

Peace and tolerance

H

Espeut, West says “Homophobia” was invented to abuse Christians as hate speech

“Some of you think that homosexuality is a greater sin than malice keeping. No way in the sight of God.” (Bishop Herro Blair, sermon on Television Jamaica (TVJ), 3 March 2003)

So the religious/biblical fundamentalist anti-homosexuality imperative continues and is now taking a deliberate omission strategy to cast aspersions and impose ostracism that of not recognizing homophobia and what the very word has come to mean over time. Of course not recognizing homosexuality as a sexual orientation has long been an ideological tool used to promote anti gay sentiments hence the use of the term “homosexual lifestyle.” A day after the discussion on straight spouses in Jamaica and three days after a letter published in the Gleaner on the same matter by Dr. Wayne West, the church and how it deals with latent homosexuality within its midst parts 1 & 2 has come an exchange with two leading anti gay voices Reverend Peter Espeut and Dr Wayne West (JCHS, LCF & Love March) on Reverend Clinton Chisholm’s radio program on the religious station LOVE 101FM May 20, 2013 with the captioned post title made I nearly fell off my seat in laughter as I could not believe what I was hearing but it is serious indeed. 

The topic of discussion was on whether the word “Homophobia” was used inappropriately and the accompanying poll question dealt with the level of same in Jamaica. Peter Espeut took his version of a moral high ground by chastising the host of the show Rev Chisholm that he should not have used the word in the poll question as it legitimizes the LGBT lobby’s political strategy to belittle Christians, Muslims and other groups who oppose “the homosexual lifestyle” (still waiting to hear his use of the correct word “orientation”) and that he (Chisholm) bought into the campaign unwittingly. In a lengthy dictate he went on about the origin of the word from the Greek, he insisted that word must not be used, “ .....It is an improper word, it is a political word which has been invented for a political purpose ........ and when you use it the way you use it you are arguing the homosexual lobby’s case for them.”.

He also accuses the gay lobby of dressing up the human rights campaign to make gay rights as human rights when it is not. He said there are no human rights involved in homosexuality as it does not appear in the declaration for human rights and his age old question, from where do rights come? The procreation bit was also pinged to his presentation though it seems that Rev Espeut is not yet aware that same sex couples or any two persons can produce an egg/embryo from fibroblast cells under the skin of the determinant “mother” and reprogramming those cells to create iPSC then combining the eggs with sperm after which YY (gay couple) or XX (lesbian couple) are removed then on to a womb environment via a surrogate mother. More and more scientific data is pointing to prove the veracity of innate homosexuality, take the Simon LeVay’s INAH3 hypothalamic study in 1991 and subsequent ones by others such as the gay sheep phenomenon, LeVay’s study looked at the differences in brain structure and finger print style etc of gay versus heterosexual men and the science is catching up from the early nineties.

Rev Chisholm claimed to plea diminished responsibility after the lengthy rebuke from Espeut taking up some several minutes of the show. Dr West agreed and he continued about the effect of the gay lobby’s political propaganda, “......... it is an insult to all persons who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.” Let us not forget this was also the same man in December 2012 sided with the Russian decision to legislatively ban “homosexual propaganda” in a supposed bid to promote traditional values. On the same show back then he said among other things that the western democracy is pushing a world view of no purpose for life so persons can marry a tree or a car in the long run, in essence moral nihilism. 

This fear-mongering and paranoia coming from minds who I thought ought to know better and have a more adept reasoning is astonishing to me. Interestingly the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS of which Dr West is a founder and leader has no qualms concocting its own political agenda with a deceptive tinge to it for example its drive to retain the buggery law, the several full paged ads depicting HIV as a gay disease while using overseas studies to justify same including sexual practices from sub-culture groups under the MSM umbrella without taking into account those territories social practices and mores. 

The December 23 2011 Jamaica Observer print ad following the leadership debate where the then Opposition leader (now Prime Minister) Portia Simpson Miller suggested a buggery review with no time line set but the ad headlined “PNP To Legalize Homosexuality!” despite the two press releases from the party and a outdoor meeting speech by Mrs Simpson Miller that flatly rebuffed any such claims the JCHS et al went on to suggest a predatory concept to male homosexuality instilling fear-mongering, paranoia and just plain hysteria in ignorance. They have gone as far as Trinidad to do so as well with ads on World AIDS day in 2012 spending thousands on such campaigns but none of any of the visible issues such as missing children, priorities please? The aligned group Love March group also has adopted this underhanded practice aided and abetted by these theologians and religious zealots, modern day Pharisees and Sadducees?

Let us also not forget the recently concluded seminar hosted by Rev Clinton Chisholm in April on Homosexuality Clinical & Biblical Perspectives that only sought to present a sanitized look at the orientation though they call it a “lifestyle” while using flawed studies including the belief that lesbians are such due to an absent father “figure” in their lives. The US based NARTH, National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality’s controversial research were used as gospel materials in that seminar and questions were filtered before airing, bearing in mind that some of NARTH’s own researchers have turned on the agency citing intellectual dishonesty by them on misrepresenting the findings on studies of orientation, reparative therapy and related psycho-social issues. Even in the face of those accusations, rapidly diminished credibility and the abject failure of reparative or conversion therapy to work via very public episodes of leading voices and participants in that regard retaining their original orientation anti gay voices locally continue to rely in part on NARTH’s papers. 

They now more than ever aggressively seek to combine the gay disease imperative to the mix as the reparative therapy strategy crumbles right before our eyes. How is there to be any serious middle ground in the tug or wars between the sides?

A recent JCHS supposed warning to persons to go get registered to vote via a referendum to block any attempt to repeal buggery 

The selectivity of the fundamentalist imperative is evident in the response to the sin of adultery. For, on the evidence of the Holy Bible itself, the commandment against the sin of adultery can be seen to be of at least equivalent seriousness to the injunction against the sin of homosexuality. Why then, it might be asked, is it that Jehovah found no space amongst the remaining nine commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai for one that explicitly forbids homosexuality, if this is correctly to be regarded as so fundamental and execrable a sin? The other sexually-related sin there mentioned forbids the coveting of one’s neighbour’s wife. But, depending of course on the sexuality involved, the also forbidden coveting of a neighbour’s man- and maid-servants not to mention that neighbour’s ox and ass may also be to sexual purposes. Furthermore, fundamentalist Christians constantly forget the important biblical injunction that ‘judgement belongs unto God’. (Casting The First Stone, Policing Homosexuality in Jamaica, (ISSN 1369-801X print/1469-929X online) Copyright © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1369801042000185697)

The historical fact as far as I see it on the word “Homophobia” long before the atheist and secularist ambits came into the debate, the homo-paedophile problems via the priesthood and Jamaica’s own record of substantiated homophobic violence cases described the hate or fear of homosexuals to include the violence and verbal abuse etc. While it may be true that the origin of the word based on its Greek link Homo from homoia meaning same and Phobia meaning an irrational fear of originally could be interpreted as a fear of sameness and was used in clinical setting in some sense but the meaning as with many other words over time with varying roots deviate or go away from their original points of origin and evolve. Espeut referred to gay activist George Weinberg’s coining of the word in his book to mean a medical phobia proposing that those who oppose homosexuality are suffering from a psychological malady, he concludes there it meant mentally ill. Meanings and use changes over time and to suggest that the word must not be used is an escapist argument in my view. 

To not use the word presupposes violence towards homosexuals does not exist. One could take a single look at how these very voices create fear and paranoia when it comes to homosexuality and linking HIV and paedophilia to the orientation with the “end of the human species” rationale which is arrant nonsense, who had all these gay children in the first place? Aren’t those ideologies in and of themselves irrational fear of something that they do not understand or bother to properly research? Are persons to just dismiss the violence over the years meted out to perceived homosexuals, lesbians and other groups? Or those are lies too in the eyes of Espeut/West?

Instead foreign HIV infection rate studies of sub groups in the MSM umbrella and dangerous faulty reparative therapy suggestions are deceptively relied upon to justify their own political agenda by creating or twisting philosophical reasoning and labelling others. I would not conclude that irrational fear of anything including homosexuality automatically means someone is mentally ill as I nor Reverend Espeut are not qualified to make such a determination when the Psychological and Psychiatric experts via the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM as reference has not deemed homophobia as such yet though Peter Espeut with full support from Dr Wayne West seem to have arrived at their own “diagnosis” simply because they cannot handle certain realities. After listening to the exchange it might be worth considering making homophobia a mental problem indeed after all, if one is sure of oneself why this fear and loathing of someone who is different when all on can do is walk away?

Espeut also claims that the gay lobby gay got the psychologists to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses and by creating the word homophobia are seeing those who oppose such is mentally ill, he said it is a wonderful public relations campaign that captures persons into the web and playing right into the gay lobby’s hand. The Facebook responses were typical as usual with the whole Sodom and Gomorrah bit and so on but one took notice of the camouflage that it also can be when actively or over zealously manifested in verbal or even physical abuse towards others perceived to be gay which was read aloud during the program “True homophobia does exists in Jamaica however on a small scale there is a widespread apparent homophobia persons appear homophobic in order to conceal their own homosexual thoughts or urges and more often than not these are the persons who do and say the most violent things in order to conceal their true identity and in reality Jamaica is not as homophobic as it appears at face value.” Frankly in my view the Sodom and Gomorrah story is more about the abuse of women (daughters) and incest more so homosexuality but the religious imperative over decades based on a hetero-patriarchal construct won’t seek to prop up or support women’s issues that way so it is much easier to condemn supposed homosexuality.

We all know very well what homophobia has come to mean as the fear and loathing coupled with ignorance of homosexuality itself but if we were to follow the guests on the program they were trying to pass off the use of the word as an insult to those who oppose the “lifestyle” to use the common terminology used by anti gay voices especially the two voices named above. Interestingly Peter Espeut says it is hate speech based on the political agenda of the gay lobby but just his tone of voice alone was enough to say he should not be even labelled a priest as if his job and task is to win so called unsaved souls he certainly does not sound like it and reminds me of the Scribes, Sadducees and Pharisees who think that they can manipulate the word and historical data via etymological and theological mumbo jumbo to present their points and influence thinking of mostly gullible followers who just wholesale accept anything these two voices spit out. 

Take for example Dr Wayne West’s continued trope of anal sex where he lumps or tries to universalize MSM sub culture group practices from other jurisdictions such as Europe to say fisting, felching, scat and chariot racing make out MSM as in his own words “Diseased, Dunce and Depraved” tying in the general ideology that HIV/AIDS is a homosexual disease, then isn’t the very accusation of coining phrases and words as he puts it to denigrate Christians who oppose the homosexual by the LGBT political agenda a hypocritical one when he himself is also using the supposed twisted strategy as well to his own end?

Homophobia for the most part from what I can recall was used to describe anti gay views and incidents that directly targeted mostly male homosexuals especially in territories where such violence was and are manifestly rampant, if both voices want to argue that Jamaica is not as homophobic as was paraded there maybe some truth to that as the crisis communication aspect of the LGBT lobby locally has been faulty but it is not lost to many Jamaicans that we have a problem that needs urgent attention and escapist logic will help none, bearing in mind Dr Wayne West’s own son Dr Keon West is openly gay and an atheist.

Mention was made of the Associated Press apparent decision to discontinue using the word “Homophobia” by Dr Wayne West where he spoke to a “Stylebook” that offers guidelines to what words should be used by reporters and the style they should be in, he said last year in September the AP allegedly removed the word on the grounds of its accuracy and making a claim of mental illness which cannot be substantiated, he claims it is an insult and that persons who present the real issues in his view “the consequences of the lifestyle” and labelled as homophobes again raising the HIV gay disease imperative.

Frankly speaking if one were not so fearful of the unknown of the effeminate and having a false perception of homosexuals as predatory, depraved, dunce and diseased (Wayne West’s favourite descriptions via his blog) then the “label” would not have stuck, would it? The homophobic description and whatever meanings for homophobia that have evolved over time would not have been applied in the first place, simply put, one can be opposed to homosexuality even with misplaced aggression about aspects linked to same sex intimacy but to be opposed in a vacuum without seeking to understand clearly what one is opposed to for clarification is just sheer ignorance and a refusal to be open and is more egregious when done on a religious platform in the name of God when God as we know it by the word came for the supposed outcasts and down trodden yet the very representative group is further made such by virtue of how these anti gay voices operate and the flawed ideologies they subscribe to. Yes there may be those who use homosexuality’s lifestyle perceptions to make money (gay for pay) and who may not be even innately so but the vast majority of same gender attracted or bisexual attracted persons are innately so in as far as we culturally know it, just ask someone who is and they will tell you their experiences. 

Deliberate conflation of same gender sex issues with abuse is intellectual dishonesty and more and more I am seeing it parade itself as truth or moral correctness and as a pillar of credibility. The very discussion if I may go as far as that to distort or redefine a word that has become culturally accepted to mean what we now know it as is also deceptive in and of itself and smacks of a kind of deviant mentality and culture in the theological sphere whilst at the same time accusing the mixed religion gay lobby of moral nihilism.

Our main argument here in Jamaica as I have said before is about privacy and freedom of choice in as far as same sex intimacy is concerned by two consenting adults plus the problematic savings law clause, let God be the judge of that when the time comes but the LGBT agitation has been watered down and mostly by the local lobby’s failure to properly address our scenario instead the religious right movement has hijacked (or been allowed to) the discourse on one hand while other gay lobby voices in a short space of time append atheism and secularism to the struggle and now what a smoke filled room we all stand in. What about gay Christians as well, where are they in the middle of all this? Going on a secularist agenda parallel to the LGBT one has only sought to inflame the religious penny section. 

Part of the disbelief, cynicism and refusal to entertain the gay lobby’s push for recognition presented constantly by anti gay voices such as these two is the fact that over the years the faulty crisis communication on homo/lesbo/biphobic abuse and actually giving the religious right some of the ammunition and hardened positions they now have as I hinted above, for example after the homeless MSM double June 13 2012 murder in New Kingston by one of their own which was almost paraded as a homophobic killing without any proper investigation by the gay lobby/allies and if it were not for the scrutiny by a section of the media such a slip up was what led to the damning article by another leading anti gay voice Betty Ann Blaine in that infamous “The Big Gay Lie” published in the Jamaica Observer, also came the parting shot from the then outgoing UK origin Assistant Police Commissioner Les Green who also sought to discredit the JFLAG cry of gay murders dismissing them as internal romantic matters and not as presented as homophobic killings based on his work with the UK Consul murder in 2010 John Terry etc. It was also in May 17 that same year a major figure formerly linked to a number of NGO groups as well was found in his apartment days after he was missing and his murder was also suspected as a hook up gone bad, then came another major socialite murder in Liguanea area but on the crime scene the JFLAG representative who spoke on camera (face hidden) made sure to tread very carefully that time as the police etc were present and speculation had no place there.

There needs to be a proper streamlined crisis communication strategy with investigative strengths so as to clearly present the issues surrounding public cases if not the disbelief, snubbing and cynicism will continue leading to more hard lined positions on homosexuality and become much harder to have the needed conversations on LGBT issues and tolerance for that matter. There needs to be a separation of homophobic versus non homophobic issues, the associated internalized homophobia, hyper-masculinity, effeminacy/phobia, socio-anthropological, psycho-sexual/social and other hetero-patriarchal links. Multiply this faulty crisis communication problem over the several decades and one can understand why we have an uphill task with the high levels of cynicism from John Public and the religious hetero-privileged voices so this dismissal of the use of the word “Homophobia” is not surprising in the end as it is a way to avoid the discussion as to the realities surrounding the levels of hate, ignorance, misunderstanding and violence towards LGBTQ issues and persons.

I guess they may soon start calling us heterophobes.

also see: Dr Wayne West’s continued intellectual dishonesty on fisting felching & chariot racing by homosexuals in Jamaica

and

Betty Ann Blaine & foreign religious zealots continue their paranoia & misrepresentations of male homosexuality 

My answer to Peter Espeut's rubbish on Homophobia Exposed from December 2012 

What would Jesus do?

Peace and tolerance

H

Additional viewing materials: gay pastor Pastor Dennis Meredith hosted a discussion at his church where he came out to them over a year ago on paedophilia and down-low religious leaders on the backdrop of the Eddie Long matter which I found addressed some of the present concerns.

Dr Shirley Fletcher sister to the former Jamaican first lady Beverly Anderson Manley with over a consultant with more than 30 years’ experience as an applied behavioural scientist, organisation systems analyst, executive coach and group facilitator and author of the book The Dance of Difference: The New Frontier of Sexual Orientation touched a key component of all of this as well excerpted here (no copyright infringement intended) 

UPDATE May 27, 2013

The Gleaner carried: 

'We're Not Crazy' - Local Lobby Defends Anti-Homosexuality Views; Rejects 'Homophobic' Label

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.

Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars, the term itself is relatively new.Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s, the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.

Conceptualizing anti-LGBT prejudice as a social problem worthy of scholarly attention was not new. In 1971, Kenneth Smith was the first person to use homophobia as a personality profile to describe the psychological aversion to homosexuality.Weinberg also used it this way in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. He describes the concept as a medical phobia:
[A] phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

In 1982, homophobia was used for the first time in The New York Times to report that the General Synod of the Church of England voted to refuse to condemn homosexuality.

the latest JCHS campaign where the HIV is a gay disease ploy is used to justify their HOMOPHOBIA with foreign studies usually with overseas evangelical support.

Homophobia manifests in different forms, and a number of different types have been postulated, among which are internalized homophobia, social homophobia, emotional homophobia, rationalized homophobia, and others. There were also ideas to classify homophobia, racism, and sexism as an intolerant personality disorder.

Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense. But after seeing the story maybe someone ought to persuade the APA to really study this irrational fear more deeply with a view to adding it once and for all.

In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association, recognizing the power of the stigma against homosexuality, issued the following statement, reaffirmed by the Board of Trustees, July 2011: "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement  stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) calls on all international health organizations, psychiatric organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Further, APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur."

Others in criticizing the etymological issue surrounding the word suggest homosexophobia but it is clear the that modern Pharisees and Sadducees are at work and are getting large financial support from somewhere yet children are hungry, missing and in lock ups with adults and these same voices are silent in that department. Who were Jesus' opponents I ask?

also see: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS continued confusion of paedophilia & consenting homosexuality.

UPDATE May 28.05.13
a radio discussion with Dr West and Carol Narcisse

UPDATE June 4, 2013
Church says it won't bow to gays as reported in the Gleaner

As if anyone asked them to "bow" fear mongering continues.Amid recent claims of human rights violations from gay rights activists, executive director of the Church of God in Jamaica Lenworth Anglin has indicated that the Church will continue to vigorously oppose efforts from the homosexual community to have the country revise its buggery laws.

Anglin, who was addressing a crusade put on by the Errol Rattray Evangelistic Association on Sunday night, declared in the presence of a number of other high-ranking clergymen that "some of us" were prepared to die in their efforts to ensure that the gay lifestyle is not accepted in Jamaica. Interesting use of the pulpit to raise the discussion to a level the LGBT lobby did while imputing violence ever so neatly, a strategy used by the political directorate over the many years hence our polarized society. I wonder how the collection plates looked after that rant?

Also hear a follow up discussion on rights here as recorded from Newstalk 93FM.