Why “You cannot legislate morality, but your legislative framework can send a signal ....” in the 2K16 throne speech?

I was taken aback for a few seconds during the throne speech delivered by the Governor General Sir Patrick Allen on April 14, 2016, the captioned text was part of the presentation which I found not only inappropriate but seems to be a coded message on what is to come; chiefly the much touted and pushed by religious right anti gay activists referendum on buggery. Why put a veiled threat in such a potentially explosive issue in a throne speech, who is the Jamaica Labour Party administration pandering to? I imagine it is the church mostly or the ever louder anti gay groups; some of them voiced their praise of the hint in the throne speech as to the retention of the buggery law via a referendum cop out on radio recently where there was a discussion with Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS representatives on the breath of change TBC radio. Anticipation is high on the expected referendum even as the buggery law is being challenged in the constitutional court (I am not feeling it neither are many LGBT folks) and the JLP instead of doing the right thing which is bring an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill via articles 76, 77 & 79 to decriminalize the ‘buggery law’ to be specific to consent, privacy and age appropriateness.

‘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:

THE 2016/2017 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

Honourable Members, justice is integral for the improvement of the general well-being and to create a prosperous society. The rule of law must apply to all and we must seek to foster transparency, disclosure and fair play. 

You cannot legislate morality, but your legislative framework can send a signal as to your sense of morality. The principles of equality, fairness, natural justice and transparency must be enshrined in our laws and underpin our legislative efforts.

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. 

Strangely since the election win the JLP administration seems to be very guarded and strategic in discussing this matter except for the hint in the throne speech. In checking around online and on the JLP related Facebook groups the buggery law discourse is either muted or non-existent. A short interview on the Seventh Day Adventist owned Northern Caribbean University, NCU radio on Sunday February 21, 2016 prior to the February 25 elections then opposition leader now Prime Minister just very briefly hinted to the Sexual Offences Bill amendment and the possible referendum on buggery; I guess the JLP is waiting for the outcome of the ongoing constitutional court challenge to act. Which will come first is unclear the referendum or the judgement in the affirmative; I am not so hopeful on the challenge as it lacks the tenets I was expecting to see in the affidavit submitted by the claimant and there is very little buzz on it in the population.

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

H