Ginnalship or common sense really Espeut on the definition of rape?

If we’re to follow Catholic priest & sometimes environmentalist Peter Espeut he like Dr Wayne West of the fanatical crew at the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS we would be led to believe the ‘gay agenda’ is on in earnest. Somehow there is some invisible hand as enacted through the lobbyists to supposedly homosexualise everyone and everything else while how conveniently nearly a 100% overlooking the clerical abuse matters in his own church let alone the rapid succession of cases in recent months involving all different kinds of church denominations. We don’t see large mobilization efforts to block the roads or cram central locations such as Half Way Tree for that but let it be a matter on ‘gay rights’ of if the victims of the sexual abuse were boys and the call for blood would have been much louder; they might even try to twin that with some homo-paedophile intent with the law reform agenda so as to justify their argument; deception indeed even from so called men of God who only use piety to fool the public.

The ongoing sexual offences review has come to a juncture of the definition of rape but not for the first time before under previous government administrations. The hot button issue is how to carefully define what is rape as for many years men are not covered under rape, minors are also not covered in terms of buggery committed on them by an adult where there is obviously no consent involved on the minor’s part by the mere fact it involves a minor. For years lobbyists have been making this point but roadblocks such as a strategy change from asking for a full repeal of buggery to an amendment (the much more sensible option from the start) have only sought to delay and skew the thrust, this despite the savings law clause being in effect prior to the replacing of section three of the constitution with the charter of rights. The draft of that charter in 1999 up to about 2002 or so had a discrimination protection clause related to sexual orientation protection feature but was vigorously fought by people such as Espeut, Shirley Richards and the two times convicted Reverend Al Miller. So folks such as Espeut are still stuck in the old language land of repeal instead of amendment which to me is middle ground in all this. Despite we have a middle ground buttressed by consent considerations involving adults while offering better protection for minors outside of a carnal abuse and child care and protection acts religious crack pots who make the rest of the church look bad still vehemently resist.

Espeut’s article in the Gleaner on Ginnalship shows up the fallacy but his lack or stridency in the church abuse department is disturbing to say the least and especially in his own church that for hundreds of years it is surmised has covered up members of the priesthood abusing boys in particular; lest we forget the very Catholics got involved in running brothels in England in the fourteenth century at one point and made a financial killing under Popes such as Gregory VII who monopolised marriage in 1037 and charged hefty fees for special aristocratic dispensations for cousin to cousin unions via an ecclesiastical seventh degree of consanguinity law. Seems Espeut wants to police us all as previous popes have attempted.

He tried to sound concerned about the ongoing clerical abuse matter in a radio interview on Newstalk 93FM but his tone sounded more discomforted in the interview than really concerned as if he had to discuss the matter as he was called upon to do so or he tried to pass it off as if it was another denomination’s problem and not his, thankfully the hosts of the show brought him back to reality as they suggested it is the catholic church that seems to have set the benchmark for said abuse. This is bearing in mind the denial of said abuse in Jamaica is ongoing by the establishment of the church here in the form of the local Bishop. But cover ups are usually well preserved by well cloaked devices and people often wrapped in piety in this case as God’s representatives on earth do not engage in such things.

Espeut claims among other things that:

"Placing all these other activities under the category of 'sexual intercourse' puts them on equal footing with penis-vagina penetration, and normalises them. Changing the definition of rape to include forced anal sex will imply that consensual buggery should be legal, and is a samfie attempt to legalise buggery through the back door. That is why J-FLAG and the pro-gay public defender support the redefinition.

But what is the injury that the redefinition is supposed to redress? Currently, men who sexually impose themselves upon other men can be charged with 'grievous sexual assault', which carries a maximum penalty on summary conviction in the parish court of a prison term not exceeding three years, and on conviction in the circuit court, to imprisonment for life or other penalties in the discretion of the judge, but not less than a 15-year prison term.

Buggery itself carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The crime of rape (forced vaginal penetration), as currently defined, carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

But it is not hard to see the ginnalship. What it will really do is provide the grounds for an argument to equalise and legalise and normalise all forms of sexual intercourse, including buggery, as long as there is consent of all the parties, and that is why the LGBTQI activists and all the libertarians have taken to the airwaves and the print media to support it.

And it is no surprise that the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society and other Christian groups have quickly come out against this attempt to normalise what they consider to be abnormal, unnatural and bestial acts; and predictably, this has drawn the fire of anti-Christian elements in the media. We have our culture wars here in Jamaica, too!

If the goal is to equalise in law the punishment of forced anal sex and forced vaginal sex, the obvious and easiest approach is to equalise the penalties for rape (forced vaginal sex) and grievous sexual assault (which includes forced anal sex and many other things besides)."

Espeut tries the outside looking in strategy when it comes to the JCHS yet he supports them wholeheartedly as it is well known. He also suggested the Sunday February 5 on RJR FM’s That’s a Rap weekend news review show that to even out the disparity between buggery, grievous sexual assault and marital rape considerations then all three should have the same punishment, in other words increasing buggery’s seven to ten year sentences to life imprisonment similar to rape when tried in the circuit/jury courts. At the parish court level judges are limited to a maximum of seven years if parties are found guilty. He does not want the limitation of rape of vaginal intercourse only to change despite the clear common sense of it all staring us all in the face while leaving out the abuse of boys via forced anal penetration.

Espeut among other things said:

“The penalties for the different offence are widely different; the solution would be make the penalties more equal without changing the definition (rape) ........ because you see if we change the definition of rape to include anal penetration but you see rape is normally accepted with consent but without consent that’s the crime.

So if you make anal sex rape then what you’re suggesting is that is possible to have anal sex/buggery with consent and therefore the people who are against this are quite correct, that to redefine rape to include anal sex does in fact by definition anal sex with consent legal and that is the source of the problem.

It seems to me that the solution would be make the penalties for all of these things equivalent and then we won’t have a problem.”

He continued:

“The LGBT people are looking for an opportunity to legalise buggery and to call rape to include anal sex into rape will provide that opportunity and therefore people are not going to go for it.........”

This is despite there is also no concept of rape in the offences against the persons act, and the over arching considerations of personal choice via consent, a matter to be determined by the very parties involved but folks like Espeut want to continue to police our choices and indeed bodies if he could more as which hole we should plug. It is pitiful this is the backwardness we still have to contend with in the twenty first century. He also claims that the implied marginalization of boys, girls in some context and women too in others the only way to solve that is to increase the punishment, so punish away because I am pure thinking comes through yet again. Higher penalties for supposed sexual sins will deal with the marginalization in his eyes.

And so what is wrong with entering the BACK DOOR! as Espeut puts it when as ADULTS with CONSENT we so choose to do? He can come stand by my door and peek through my keyhole and see the dick go in.

SMH

More anon

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

Rev Peter Espeut | Backlash And 'Gaylash' claims he is not a Trump supporter

Peter Espeut told to 'Don't Dress Up Homophobia As Science' 

Is this a joke .... Church group denies gay bias

More gay marriage paranoia & hijacking of the homosexual debate by fanatics 2014

and the lunacy as well in: Reverend Espeut, West says “Homophobia” was invented to abuse Christians as hate speech and War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this? (prior to the Professor Bain conflict of interest explosion)

When did anyone ask for gay marriage rights in Jamaica when we can't get basic tolerance ......... more smokescreen to deny recognition 2014

more sex police mess: Theocracy indeed sex police at SDA operated hospital