‘Morality’ here I imagine homosexuality specifically without it being said openly bearing in mind homosexuality is not illegal in Jamaica but a sexual practice by some gay and bisexual men is in terms of anal penile penetration sex and indeed any other anal contact that can be proven as highly suspicious as defined in the lesser related charges of gross indecency and grievous sexual assault. We must also not forget the Prime Minister similar to his party’s predecessor is Seventh Day Adventist and is seen to continue in some way that moral agenda as carried by the ‘not in my cabinet’ Bruce Golding. While I understand the need for public order, decency and true tolerance even in the face of the feared public displays of affection by same gender loving persons, the paranoia literally is frightening as expressed in recent utterances and leaves one thinking that making such overtures between consenting adults especially is somehow contagious just by sight to impact persons to act especially children.
The section of the throne speech addressing this appears on page 14 of the document where it read:
Then if morality cannot be legislated in the first place why include it in a throne speech again I ask, what changes that are considered so deleterious that that caution was needed as part of the planned legislative agenda? This is disturbing to me and it might be seen by some as knit-picking but it is in one-liners or phraseology that the devil is hidden and subtle messages are sent. Especially with our politicians who cannot be open about what they do it is expected and can be missed at times as so many other things dominate the national daily agenda.
What message from the legislative framework is needed to be sent? One of theocracy on the premise of keeping an old 483 year old legislation and why oh why was there no mention of the referendum in the throne speech seeing it was the draw card to appease the religious voices. The meeting that was being sought by JCHS and other antigay groups with the new administration was it gained and it so what was discussed? Too many questions and uncertainty abound and this seems to the JLP nicely playing to the gallery to get some traction on the one seat majority in the house seeing that the now opposition hypocritical PNP was or is seen as too pro-LGBT since the suggestion (seen as a promise) conscience vote that never materialized; so we were duped in essence.
Let us see if the answers will come forth.
Peace & tolerance