I find it so damned hypocritical and indeed insulting that groups such as the one named in the post's title is quick on the draw to support the idea of changing our final court from the UK Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ a move I support but if they want to remove old legal English vestiges from so called colonial masters why not also support removal or decriminalization of buggery too as it is an old 482 year old now irrelevant piece of legislation.
I wonder if the LCF thinks the CCJ will maintain the savings law clauses and such that hold such legislation as buggery or the maintaining of marriage as defined as a woman and a man in a voluntary union is the reason for this strong support and not our independence judicially?
After all the British repealed the damned thing finally in 1967 where The Sexual Offences Act decriminalized homosexual acts between two men over 21 years of age in private in England and Wales. The 1967 Act did not extend to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, where all homosexual behaviour remained illegal. The privacy restrictions of the act meant a third person could not be present and men could not have sex in a hotel. These restrictions were overturned in the European Court of Human Rights in 2000. (SEE loads more below on some of the timeline thanks to the help of a gay researcher as well ....... mwah)
RJR News carried this entry on their website .......
As the Senate gears up to begin debate on whether Jamaica should establish the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as its final appellate court, several powerful groups issued a statement last night, declaring their full support for the Court.
In a joint statement night, the Jamaican Bar Association (not uploaded on their site as at this blog entry's creation) along with seven leading NGOs, associations and civil society groups urged support for the CCJ as the country's final appellate court.
The list includes the Organisation of Commonwealth Caribbean Bar Associations, National Integrity Action, University of Technology - Law Faculty, Jamaica Civil Service Association, Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Cornwall Bar Association, University and Allied Workers Union, and the Jamaican Bar Association.
The groups are hoping to convince senators opposed to the CCJ that it's time to break away from the Privy Council.
In the statement, the groups reminded the senators that access to the Privy Council is simply not available for the vast majority of Caricom nationals.
They argued that most Caribbean nationals cannot afford to take their case to the Privy Council and that the CCJ offers them an opportunity to get justice. They added that, after ten years, they have seen changes to the CCJ, as originally structured, that better secure its independence and ability to provide justice.
The Senate debate on the CCJ Bills begins on Friday.
So we must keep old legislation and I suppose they also want to ditch the queen as our head of state indeed most people do but still we must keep a 482 year old legislation with all its twists and turns with multiple re-enactments. Theocracy at work eh? We cannot make honey from poison not when the original intent of the act was one with an imperative of ill-will in support of the English reformation under King Henry VIII.
Also we must I cannot leave out the preservative where we are still stuck with this stupid law via the Savings Law Clause In a statute, an exception of a special item out of the general things mentioned in the statute. A restriction in a repealing act, which is intended to save rights, while proceedings are pending, from the obliteration that would result from an unrestricted repeal.
The provision in a statute, sometimes referred to as the severability clause, that rescues the balance of the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionality if one or more parts are invalidated. With respect to existing rights, a saving clause enables the repealed law to continue in force that essentially came into effect on the night of our so called independence:
Savings Law Clause
• S. 26 (8)
Nothing contained in any law in force immediately before the appointed day (Independence 1962) shall be held to be inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Chapter; and nothing done under the authority of any such law shall be held to be done in contravention of any of these provisions.
Offences Against the Person Act (1864)
• 76. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.
• 77. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.
Outrages on Decency
• 79. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.