The recent ruling in Belize by the Supreme Court on the striking down adults same gender sex and opposite gender sex as well seems to have sent some persons into frenzy on the issue as the fear mongering is on in earnest. The believes and misnomers that gay marriage is next when marriage between a man and a woman as defined in the charter of rights is as clear as crystal; such a meaning is so deeply entrenched that it would take forever almost to have removed providing some good well thinking members of parliament decide to take it on. Presently no parliamentarians wants to come close to addressing the present thrust for amending the articles 76, 77 & 79 concerning buggery or the abominable crime under the Sexual Offences Bills.
The latest slippery slope that some persons egregiously use to include religious fanatics while giving the church on a whole a bad name and image is that if consenting adults are allowed to engage in private in anal penetration then what is to stop incestuous relations to occur so long there is consent, some have gone even further such as attorneys Bert Samuels and Shirley Richards of Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship fame that persons may even advocate to be married to animals despite the fact the said ‘buggery law’ also speaks to beastiality, when no such calls have been made to amend that section. According to them as has happened in Europe whilst not able to provide any proof simply make absolutes pronouncements albeit they are attorneys and ought to know better. It is not surprising as other colleagues such as Dr Wayne West on his feverish campaign on seeing HIV is a gay disease ploy has also deceptively (in the name of piety) claimed all other anal acts will be free and open for use for said consenting adults. He has grouped for example scatting, fisting and felching in his public advocacy and also in church presentations over and over again. Obviously it is exaggeration for effect, magnify the problem so that it sounds convincing. Now that the doors are closing the aforementioned referendum on buggery by then opposition leader now prime minister is now the obvious target by antigay voices in a bid to play on the national sentiments if not ignorance.
Phillipa Davies a colleague of West also tried it recently on transgenderism and maybe thought it would have gone unnoticed on the radio show she hosts, since my exposure of the unsubstantiated comments she made on Dr Alfred ‘s work she has hardly appeared on the show but recently turned up in a almost flopped protest outside the US embassy on the rainbow lighting motif they had done some days before and the rainbow flag support they showed immediately following the Florida shooting incident of a gay nightclub. Miss Davies has been groomed well it seems not to mention Helen Coley Nicholson president of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship who sounds more like someone is pressing her buttons or coaching her on what to say publicly; namely her predecessor Shirley Richards. This is the same woman who some years ago asked that lesbians be also criminalised as gay men in terms of the sexual offences bill although she knows full well (or ought to) as an attorney that that may not be possible as what would the women be so engaged in that would warrant such a call, yet Richards and company are all but silent on other societal atrocities; that was evidenced by a radio interview on BEST 100FM hosted by Rastafarian attorney Miguel Lorne who while haling the aforementioned US Embassy protest mentioned the Mario Deane matter where he effectively said the protests over the two year period saw very little participation of the clergy or churches, he encouraged her to join in on other matters to which Mrs Richards barely gave an affirmative response and quickly went back to the anti gay agenda she was on the radio about.
There seems to be a well orchestrated campaign to target talkshows with this latest strategy to conflate purposely incest with consenting adults sexual activity. Another discussion on LOVE 101FM’s Morning Watch Bert Samuels used the same strategy while claiming gay marriage is next, despite he explained that marriage as defined now is between a man and a woman and is deeply entrenched he claimed if someone wants to marry their dog they can challenge the act while chastising the originators of the ‘buggery law’ of changing morality. He also suggested they were forcing former colonies to accept the ‘new morality’ of which he is greatly opposed. He mentioned the savings law clause briefly in a supposed bid to give the background but persisted that colonies are being pressured or moral imperialism:
“They want to change a law that they imposed on us originally, they gave it to us.” He said among other things.
Even when it is not as if the entire buggery law will go but instead will be very clearly defined as to privacy and consent. Gary Harriot of the Jamaica Umbrella Group of Churches, JUG who also sided with Mr Samuels, the issue of laws and morals came up as well as well as separation of church and state. Samuels also raised the issue of a twenty year old woman who is attracted to her father as an example; he claimed that they are adults and consenting so he asked:
“Where do we draw the line?”
Yet at no point in the near thirty minute discussion no mention was made there and even elsewhere where the matter has been raised incest laws have been brought up. Samuels played on fears that other rights in the charter of rights such as freedom of expression would collide with marriage rights and so on. What is most interesting on all of this is that regarding the savings law clause unlike Belize that amended their ‘buggery law’ some five years after their independence to describe the crime as ‘unnatural acts’ or ‘crime against nature’ Jamaica has left the legislation as we inherited same in 1962. Belize also has a protection of discrimination due to sexual orientation in their constitution but Jamaica does not, if I recall that protection was removed during the charter of rights draft debate in a cleverly orchestrated word meaning linguistic distraction as to the meaning of ‘sex’ as it would have left open a door to something else then.
The attempt to try to marry or suggest a slippery slope for every other conceivable ills and sexual aspersion will come flying through the door if and when the courts rule similarly locally as our UNIBAM success in Belize is simply dishonesty. To think this is being done in the name of God; what misrepresentation. As far as my untrained understanding of incest is concerned even if there is consent with blood relatives engaging in sexual activity the incest legislation which also is included in the sexual offences bill which contain the ‘buggery law’ is clear that it is illegal. To twin such with opposite sex partners is deceptive and clearly shows a kind of desperation by anti gay voices as their cause slowly shrinks before their eyes. Sadly again this is being done in the name of God which makes the hardened positions more tenuous, no wonder why so many LGBT persons claim secularism or aetheism just to strengthen their own hand. Incest is not just about the religious component of it linked to Leviticus but also the biological considerations.
It is well known as common knowledge that the likelihood of a child as a product of an incestuous liaison can lead to birth issues if not a disabled or handicapped offspring as the bloodline is too close causing such outcomes. Probably the only incestuous issue between men is that of cousins or brothers (if so extreme) or Uncle and nephew no children would be the outcome after unprotected sex and ejaculation to create any pregnancy. Even so a buggery charge if provable would stand more so than incest in such a matter. I am not aware of any such case where two adult consenting men have been charged and successfully prosecuted for incest after being charged. Definitely cases involving an older perpetrator and a minor who are related incest are included alongside the other relevant charges so applied.
The 2009 Sexual Offences Act under ‘Incest’ is clear as it states:
7.--(1) The offence of incest is committed by a male person Incest who willingly has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that the other person is his grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece or granddaughter.
(2) The offence of incest is committed by a female person who willingly has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that the other person is her grandfather, father, brother, son, uncle, nephew or grandson.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), the relationship between the person charged with an offence under any of those subsections and the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed includes a relationship determined by the reference to the whole blood or half blood, as the case may be.
(4) A person who commits the offence of incest is liable on conviction in a Circuit Court to imprisonment for life.
Not much change has come to light regarding incest outside of a sex offenders’ registry since despite reviews and amendments over the years.
Touching gay marriage versus civil unions and affording rights to same gender couples Bert Samuels’ resistance was clear:
“Well what is happening is that these groups, these partners want to have the same rights; in other words they want to have the right if their partner is in the hospital and cannot determine, they want to be able to determine whether you turn of life support or they want to be able to inherit property from their partners, that’s another route that has been elsewhere instituted, so that it is a recognition of these unions now being given legal status similar to marriage where people can inherit and pass property from one to the other.
You’re asking my personal view on that, I am old school, I am sorry.”
Reverend Harriot also mentioned the restorative therapy ambit supposedly claiming persons needed to be ‘cared for’ and that of ‘God’s design’ but he did not go down the road of exploring whether said design also include diverse orientation. The misconception of the mention of the word ‘diversity’ as seen by some churches as a bi-word for homosexual activists to invade the church and that it would be resisted strongly or reinterpreted to mean denominations and not a pro-LGBT agenda. Still want more fear mongering well there is the notion of Belize’s supposed destruction post the landmark decision.
We have a good way to go on just sensible discourse from persons who one would have expected better.
Peace & tolerance