The Public’s separation of homo-negativity and homeless LGBT welfare issues

In recent days and indeed years to be precise the repeated public evictions of Kingston’s homeless MSM and transgender young persons that have made mainstream news the public’s concern and discourse on the matter has produced a surprising ability by some to separate the issues that attend to homosexuality in general including homo-negativity and homophobia versus the glaring welfare issues and indeed hypocrisy that abound from the LGBT lobby regarding the same populations. The selectivity of the issues being looked at JFLAG namely the organization that has become the brunt of heightened cynicism as their public agitation is stepped up on the buggery law, the contrast between the call for tolerance, the public acceptance of free will, privacy and consent between adults and the current Supreme Court legal challenges to force some amendment to the buggery law versus the strongly perceived view that the homeless groups have been rejected by JFLAG and others more affluent gay persons is blatantly clear so much so that the public is becoming very dismissive of calls of any kind from JFLAG as the common man is interpreting the contrast as sheer hypocrisy and classism at work. Comments such as those on Newstalk 93FM (July 8, 2013) say it loud and clear for e.g. “a de rich gay boi dem a look bout demself while the poor one dem a suffer, a fool dem tek people fah no change no law roun’ ere,” (It is the rich gay powerful men that are looking about their rights or feathering their nests while the poor ones suffer, no change in the law then)

Since the last eviction from the upscale neighbourhood of Barbican namely the Millsborough Avenue area as carried on both television stations with faces visible and all and the subsequent demolition of the house the public discourse has been vociferous about the welfare of the men and the shock even by homophobes per say who are repeatedly asking where is the concern by JFLAG and the others for these men? Is it because they are poor or considered “buttus” so they are unworthy of any recognition? Talk show hosts have joined the fray in casting the hypocrisy image on the organization and I agree in some sense, here are some considerations:

How can a tolerance message resonate with an already cynical public about homophobia, homo-negativity and violence where it is believed that the lobby has lied, is lying or twisting truth?

Have the relevant agencies come to terms that the previously introverted nature of homeless MSM is now a dead phenomenon?

If such ideal virtues as espoused are not demonstrably clear to the public that they want to convince how the campaigns can reap results that will lead to a change in the national psyche towards homosexuality?

Doesn’t JFLAG et al realise that they are now being seen as hypocrites and liars by the public more so than ever before?

Is JFLAG more interested in preserving its image especially in the international arena that it feels it must separate itself from this “rowdy” group?

Where are the interventions that we were told of in a November 7, 2012 town hall meeting that were coming including a residential facility that was to open on December 1, 2012?

Why does JFLAG only seek to act after when things get really bad in a knee-jerk reaction? We always knew of homelessness long before now

How does JFLAG and advocates find millions for Supreme Court challenges but are silent and paralysed when it comes to the homeless MSM/Transgender persons?

How can agencies such as JFLAG gain any moral authority in engaging these men (if they realise that they need to) with the requisite programs?

Where is the ethical depth here or ideological base for any agitation for rights and recognition for LGBT rights here when a prominent sub group under the LGBT umbrella is perceived as abandoned by JFLAG?

Is the public being lied to about JFLAG’s ability to find a space to start their idea of a shelter?

Will the former Safe House residents (some of whom are in the Millsborough evictees) and older populations be included in JFLAG’s shelter idea?

I agree with Mrs Barbara Gloudon to a certain extent on her position she took on her radio show on July 4, 2013 the day after the eviction was carried on her radio station’s sister television station TVJ where she asked why the church that was quick to launch anti gay and anti buggery demonstrations are silent on this issue and why are the relevant LGBT agencies not openly addressing this group? She went on to suggest the hypocrisy between well to do homosexuals who are well known in Jamaican society but are comfortable in their homes and status and who clamour for rights but what about the rights for this set of men. She went on the express some concerns as well similar to mine about the relocation of this group and their engrained anger that won’t remain as such but will present itself elsewhere. Simply removing the men from this location is only going to relocate the problem probably more concentrated elsewhere and this has been so for years. This thing started in New Kingston and downtown to some extent for years long before this group as homelessness in the MSM and possibly transgender community predates any LGBT lobby formation and struggle. The amount of persons who have fallen through the cracks is astounding if one were to really start counting and no serious answers came save and except a residency pilot project, The Safe House Project 2009 but it was closed as the anti social behaviours showed up and the planned psycho social interventions that were to kick in were not allowed to hence the men were thrown back onto the streets as the easier way was chosen to address the problem thinking the men would have disappeared in the underground relegated to service users of these same organizations that ditched them and when an extra ordinary incident occurs with one of their own it is waved to the world as proof of homophobia in Jamaica. So it is convenient to use them for international image positioning but leave them untended to for to find finality to the long standing issues of lives interrupted.

Naomi Francis of Nationwide radio alongside her co-host Emily Crooks also were scaving in their charge as well without calling the names of the agencies but implied they lamented on the hypocrisy of well to do homosexuals in the lobby who also parade themselves for rights waxing in eloquence but leave out the least amongst themselves to suffer as martyrs so as to push an agenda. The credibility of the lobby is taking a massive hammering since this series of public spectacles regarding the homeless MSM in Kingston in particular while the other populations elsewhere for the better part are ignored. Press releases after press releases have come and the spin doctors in the set up put out their columns in the papers as usual in typical knee jerk reaction all in a bid to fix their image more so than really finding solutions for these men and transgender individuals. Members of the public have been echoing such sentiments; the temporary host of Newstalk 93FM’s Straight Up program also had such aforementioned perceptions as a major theme in the show for the last couple days and callers on all platforms just from a cursory scan express similar sentiments. A typical call for example would open by declaring their opposition to supposed homosexuality but then there is a hypothetical scenario placed of the moral grounds is presented and the original perception that since the men are gay then naturally the lobby would seek to protect them or see to their welfare instead they are ditched and rights seem only a call for rich powerful gays versus poorer classes who suffer the abuse. We must bear in mind the already held belief that more affluent homosexuals are recruiting persons into homosexuality now the belief of class stratification only serves to harden that belief that poorer men are just bait for sex and abandonment.

I wonder sometimes who are the strategists inside the agencies are these days as the seeming aimless direction they are heading and on a frolic of their own leaving out the rest of the community is frightening. There are early worrying signs in the newer populations of displacees and homeless men who socialize separately from the Millsborough/Dewsbury groups signs that were seen in the latter populations, are those signs a prediction of things to come when we see the fallout the former Safe House residents and Millsborough evictees as a benchmark of anti social behaviours in similar groups. Have these same strategists and leadership realise that the damning castigation by the two major newspapers of abandonment by the agencies via editorials respectively has resonated with the public hence the scrutiny and cynicism by readers and ordinary folk? Let us not forget the men have said repeatedly that they have been abandoned and their voices have been allowed to carry via television and in print; the exclusion of the homeless men for example the May 17th International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia symposium at that Larry Chang Inaugural event has left JFLAG with a black eye in some circles and more proof that the true welfare of the men is not on the agenda of the advocacy group with a social interventions arm via its crisis interventions department yet publicly the Executive Director paints a picture that the welfare issues is outside of JFLAG’s core activity; but we know that the agency was formed to take away some of the immediate issues from its parent organization Jamaica AIDS Support as they did not want to be perceived as a gay organization seeing that so many LGBT people were going there for varying reasons. JFLAG’s formation was not only about the challenge to the buggery law yet to fix their image they present such a premise as its cause of origin.

It is going to be far more rocky to convince the public than it already is some of who are reaching so many conclusions and it seems nobody is measuring the points of views in the public domain, then again if bloggers who are not ivy leaguers and part of academia are not listened to then how do we expect such intellectual snobbery to disappear when it comes to the vast majority of ordinary citizenry? Jamaicans have a funny way of seeing through issues when we least expect and powers that be in general tend to under estimate the common sense of the common man while dismissing their simple yet direct comments as not worthy enough for consideration. Homeless persons in general were and are expected to be invisible as was reiterated by long time advocate Yvonne McCallah Sobers of Families against State Terrorism, FAST some of the measures used to rid the streets of homeless persons include:

1. Arrest and imprisonment. Today’s Larceny Act contains a clause prohibiting “loitering”, a by-product of vagrancy. Police have arrested homeless gay men on charges of “loitering”.

2. Police eviction. Squatters are forcibly removed, often without the offer of alternative shelter. The homeless gays in New Kingston have so far been evicted about four times. (in fact nine times)

3. Arbitrary removal. There has long been suspicion that homeless persons (in particular the mentally ill) are carted away in clean-up exercises in locations with an image to preserve. The 1999 removal of street people from the tourist resort city of Montego Bay, St James, provided an example of forced relocation of the homeless. Almost 40 persons were rounded up and driven to a site close to a red mud lake in St Elizabeth. State agencies were involved in the kidnap, and a commission of enquiry was held. No public officer faced any court charge as a result of the incident.

4. Offer of shelter. For homeless males, Kingston has one night shelter and one residential shelter (mainly for the mentally ill homeless person). Both shelters have limited space and resources.

Reports indicate that the homeless are routinely abused: raped, burnt, beaten, and sodomized. That too reinforces the belief that once male homosexuality is brought into the mix the some predatory behavior or abuse will automatically obtain. Homeless gay men in New Kingston therefore face complex problems because they are:

1. Visibly homeless in an upscale community.

2. Homeless in a society seemingly without compassion or political will to address the shelter needs of the homeless and evidently unmoved by the shelter and security needs of the homeless.

3. Openly gay in a society that is anti-gay, and where influential gays feel compelled to conceal their sexual orientation.

4. Sufficiently aggressive and organized to draw attention to their existence by creating mayhem

The agencies ignore those ordinary voices to their own peril. The Urgency of relieving New Kingston businesses and residents of the problem of homeless gays and by extension Barbican has led to mainstream human rights groups taking a hypocritical stance as well where in they publicly endorse arrest of law-breakers without apparently giving at least equal attention to addressing the causes of the problem. While the media continue stereotype the LGBT community, based on behaviour of homeless gays (in particular the Observer). They do not publish pieces promoting tolerance of differences, decriminalizing or repealing the buggery law, ending stigma and discrimination based on sexual orientation but instead carry items promoting intolerance of differences based on sexual orientation, retaining and buggery law, and perpetuating stigma and discrimination (in particular Clovis cartoons in the Observer).

Q: What is likely to happen if the problems are not solved?

A: Increasing formation of a parallel society by homeless gays, and increased frustration of government and non-government agencies as the homeless gays retreat more and more into their parallel society. Jamaica has already had examples of garrison communities that become virtually independent of the State. The escalation in numbers of homeless gays is noteworthy as far as my numbers are concerned: from 30 (2009) to 55 (2010) to 70 (2011) to 80 (2012) to an estimated 100+ (start of 2013) which does not include the migratory pattern on out of towners from other metro poles such as Spanish Town, Ocho Rios, Montego Bay, Mandeville and even eastwards as Portland and St Thomas. The initial talks and consultation exercises way back in 2008 under the defunct Safe House Project 2009 had 9 such sessions that looked at the needs at some of the challenges we saw then when I was a part of JFLAG and JASL’s targeted interventions programs, the first session at the time we had 13 folks coming in while the other street based work modeled from the PLACE methodology had us coming across more than 120 persons in Kingston alone over a four month period as displacees. The size and scope of the problem has been grossly underestimated and hence today the leadership in many of these NGOs are now faced with the challenge even in the face of any serious interest from them.

The men again were removed from another site on Dewsbury Avenue where they had gone to seek shelter albeit illegally so our homeless are nomads in their own land with a hypocritical JFLAG more interested in preserving their image and absolving themselves of blame as made more visibly obvious by the Sunday July 7, 2013 headline story of the Gleaner The Hunt for a Home – “JFLAG chides state for its treatment of homeless as gay men search for somewhere to rest” The Executive Director of the J was quoted in the article alongside someone said to be a representative of the agency who sought to describe the injuries of one of the men with the following disturbing response when pressed on it they reportedly said “I don’t know the circumstances of the attack you would have to speak to him” a most strange response of a crisis intervention case from a so described representative in my eyes and if correct speaks to the hands off approach of the frontline staff. Let us not forget that this is the same JFLAG that distanced itself from the men in the height of the challenges from Trafalgar Park, New Kingston and even Millsborough Avenue when their presence there first broke as news but JFLAG suddenly had no qualms trying to paint the police as aggressive to the men in the removal exercise when the four video presentations of the action showed no such thing or hinted to as the cops were familiar with the men and only sought to have them removed so the demolition crew could carry out the task. Dane Lewis was quoted as saying “The police operation to remove individuals from a property on Millsborough Avenue is another example of the unnecessarily brutish treatment of the poor and vulnerable who have no place to sleep.”

So now the same men who JFLAG turned its back on are now suddenly poor and vulnerable to suit the grandstanding and deception yet a few lines later he is quoted again “the organization condemns unlawful actions of any person including homosexuals ........... Repeatedly removing people from abandoned properties does not solve the fundamental problem it merely tells them to find somewhere else to sleep at nights.” I find it remarkable that JFLAG’s statements change with the complexion of this longstanding issue of displacements and homelessness yet they were deafeningly silent when the safe house was ordered closed by the Jamaica AIDS Support board in 2009 finally shutting down February 26, 2010 but not until August 21 – 24 2011 when the second insurrection took place at JASL/JFLAG’s former office from they were evicted where the story was picked up by the Jamaica Observer the J has been on an image repair drive at every turn aided and abetted by prominent activists, they claim they tried but those attempts were too little too late (April 2012); who really cares about the least amongst us? The men are only being used as it is plain to see by those who are objectively looking at this mess but the public is also slowly catching up on the deception just listen to the talk shows and the type of analysis by ordinary folk; people are thinking and observing. Also take note the officers who did the removal exercise were the same ones who have been addressing the issues in New Kingston and the particular Superintendent who led the operation seen HERE was on a television program discussing homelessness with JFLAG on October 3, 2012 see more HERE  who has been very patient with the issue albeit JFLAG's permission of sorts to act yet now  that they have acted JFLAG falsely accuses them of being brutish when the men in fairness left the property unimpeded.

Then we turn around and wonder why the public is so cynical and the crisis communication over the years has been so paltry?

Think on these things

ANOTHER HYPO UPDATE: July 9, 2013
Want more hypocrisy check out the letter from one of the most powerful German Jamaicans in the hotel industry who was so silent on homelessness all these years all of a sudden now pens a letter to the Gleaner entitled of all things: "Turn Off Gaydar And Rescue The Homeless" we cannot go suddenly now speak out on homelessness and use this group when THEY WERE ALWAYS AROUND yet you were SILENT; is this how we are to get freedom in this country by hypocrisies, half truths, lies and dishonest posturings? HYPOCRITES ON ALL SIDES IT SEEMS as the church continues it selectivity and nitpicking as well. it is most disgusting to watch this all play out like this, where is the moral compass, where is the ethical depth, where is ideological base in all this and from all sides involved?

Peace and tolerance

UPDATE JFLAG supposedly hits out: 

JFLAG hits out at gay thieves

H