But of course the EU will not openly say grant aid is linked to LGBT rights

So the latest tranche of funds from the European Union, EU has come much to the delight of the Jamaica Labour Party administration, JLP as we have to sadly and in a near mendicant way rely on their aid as we somehow 54 years into independence have not yet managed to manage our own affairs without aid or handouts. The Gleaner carried a front page story on Sunday December 12, 2016 stating “EU not linking aid to gay rights, death penalty.” The JLP like the People’s National Party before when they came to power in 2011 had to fend off suspicions of hidden agendas by those who aid us to somehow ‘impose’ their will in exchange for the assistance or grants for budgetary support. We have been down this road before with Andrew Holness at the helm so this is not new and for the local European Union representative to be trying to allay fears of hidden LGBT rights demands tells us we have a long way to go on many fronts in terms of trust on all sides.

see: Jamaica's Stance On Gay Rights Won't Affect EU Funding (Gleaner 2012)

As the captioned title says the EU is not going to directly tell any nation that there are indeed some considerations at least or prerequisites at best for same in order to qualify for said aid or grants, of course there are considerations of protocol, harmonious relations, confidentiality and just for good business negotiating terms or talks are kept out of the public domain but the very words of the representatives in the Gleaner article one Miss Malgorzata Wasilewska says it all;

“We will continue having dialogue on values that are important to us and they will include conversations on the death penalty and LGBT rights, on equality of rights to all citizens. I am convinced that the dialogue will be an honest and frank exchange between equals.”

But of course the courtesies must be observed and the deliberate use of “equals” is noted as indicated above for protocol and harmony diplomatic etiquette must be observed but let us get real, which country when dispensing of its tax payer money in grant aid or budgetary support to another country, better yet island developing states such as ours and not have expectations and attachments to such aid. What could explain the resistance by the African Caribbean and Pacific States group, ACP in years gone by in negotiating trade deals or the soon to be expired Cotonou Agreement? They have time and again claimed they will not be dictated to on gay rights or gay marriage so obviously some talk has gone on and is still going on behind the scenes. If only we can speak truth to power and just be open and honest on things but sadly the reality speaks otherwise.

Arthur Hall of the Gleaner penned:
While making it clear that Europe would prefer if Jamaica expands gay rights and abolish the death penalty, the European Union's (EU) new representative in Kingston insists that these would not be conditions for the island to continue to receive EU economic aid.

" ... There is no conditionality," Malgorzata Wasilewska, the head of the EU Delegation in Jamaica, said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Gleaner.

"It never has been, and it never will be," said Wasilewska in response to questions if the EU would demand movements from Jamaica in line with the trends in Europe.

"But if in the course of our cooperation any of our values are not respected - for example, if we implement a project and during the project, there is a clear violation of human rights in the implementation - of course, we would raise that and have a conversation about it," added Wasilewska.

Over the past 40 years, the EU has provided Jamaica with official development assistance of approximately €1.2 billion, or J$170 billion. Some of this money has been direct budgetary support, which has helped the island meet crucial fiscal targets under its agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

$3-BILLION BOOST

Only last week, the EU provided a grant of €24 million (more than J$3 billion) to support Jamaica's Justice System Reform Programme.

Of this amount, €22 million was in the form of budget support, while €1 million will be offered to civil-society organisations, through calls for proposals to contribute to improving access to justice, with an emphasis on vulnerable groups. The remaining €1 million will go towards providing technical assistance, evaluation and audits, as well as communication and visibility services.

But the issue of gay rights and the death penalty, subtexts to EU-Jamaica relations, are not areas where the long-time friends see eye to eye, and there have been concerns that the 28-member bloc will use its financial might to force the island to fall in line with its position on these issues.

Most of the money the EU has given Jamaica has been grant resources for sectors such as education, human-rights awareness, security, agriculture, and rural development, but there have been concerns expressed recently as more and more Europeans start looking inwards.

Wasilewska last week admitted that the EU does not see eye to eye with Jamaica on issues such as the death penalty and LBGT rights, but said that would not impact the billions of dollars in aid provided to the island each year.

"We will continue having a dialogue on values that are important to us and they will include conversations on the death penalty and LBGT rights, on equality of rights to all citizens. I am convinced that the dialogue will be an honest and frank exchange between equals," Wasilewska told The Sunday Gleaner on the fringes of a meet-and-greet session in Kingston.

In June, all 28 EU member states reached a consensus on LGBT rights and agreed at the Council of the European Union to work against "any discrimination" against LGBT people, and to ramp up pan-European efforts on equality.

The council urges individual national governments "to consider working together with the European Commission with regard to its list of actions to advance LGBTI equality", and "to take action to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity".

Jamaica has shied away from any such commitment, with the recently introduced Charter of Rights failing to recognise same-sex unions or provide any specific protection for members of the LBGT community.

The death penalty has been abolished in all EU states and is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

Locally, parliamentarians voted in 2008 to retain the death penalty, even though no execution has taken place in decades.

ENDS

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

EU considers LGBT considerations for future negotiations

That UK aid issue again with Cameron ......

European Parliament zooms in on LGBT rights in the world ..... 

African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels 2010

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"

Ministry Embarks On Human-Rights Public-Awareness Campaign - Gleaner (the goodly minister had to sing for his supper some say)

How the EU can promote LGBT rights in the ACP group

also see: Despite opposition, EU Parliament votes for LGBTI rights/trans identity depathologization in gender equality strategy from sister blog GLBTQJA, I however came across this publication excerpted below sent to me via email.

The Cotonou Agreement, the core of political and trade relations between the European Union and the group of African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states revealed a major issue related to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. In more than half of ACP states (49 out of 79) homosexuality is illegal and is punished with up to 14 years in jail. In five countries, it warrants the death penalty. 

view here

Promoting democracy and respect for human rights, the EU has immediately expressed concern regarding the dissimilar views and practices between the agreed parties. Although member states differ in particular legislation, all 28 recognise homosexuality and LGBT rights, which are protected under the EU treaties. Capital punishment is prohibited in the EU, per Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Any partnership between EU and ACP states cannot be legitimised without consensus regarding essential human
 and therefore LGBT rights. 

To this end, the EU strives to affect change in the domestic policies of its Cotonou partners which would elevate the legal status and norms regarding their LGBT communities. One way in which the EU could promote its values beyond its borders is through positive conditionality within the framework of the Cotonou Agreement. Political dialogue benefits all parties involved and is the surest approach to foster acceptance of the LGBT community in the ACP group. The message promoted by EU representatives did not resonate with the heads of ACP states, especially in the case of Uganda and Nigeria, which recently adopted new anti-LGBT legislation, expanding the criminalisation of it, and obliging anyone who might be aware of a LGBT person to report it to the authorities.

“Human rights and minority rights are universal, and we cannot accept these laws. It is time for the EU to look at the restrictive measures available under the Cotonou Agreement. Trampling human rights should come with economic consequences.” 

Olle Schmidt MEP, Member of the ACP-EU delegation and Member of the LGBT Intergroup.

Should the EU use sanctions?

Sanctions are used in the belief that economic restrictions weaken target regime access to the vital resources necessary to sustain their political power and domestic order.
When the regime’s coercive power is undermined by public opinion and contested by elites who benefitted from the status quo ante,it is expected that human rights conditions will improve.

The overwhelming majority of sanctions research concludes that sanctions are a largely ineffective policy tool of compelling compliance. Outlined in “Basic Principles on the Use of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions)”, the EU identifies sanctions as a last-resort instrument to ‘name and shame’ its targets. The EU takes care to minimise public suffering by issuing ‘smart’ sanctions targeting individuals wielding political or economic power. However, these elites are able to evade the costly effects of sanctions by deflecting them downward, funnelling the burden disproportionately upon average citizens.

Sanctions would undermine the Cotonou Agreement

A fundamental principle of the Cotonou Agreement is recognition of equality of partnership among EU and ACP countries.

Dictating terms and punishing non compliance neither serves European interests nor aspirations. Public opinion in ACP countries is resolutely in opposition to LGBT rights. They will, in time,come to accept the LGBT community as equal citizens not by force, but of their own volition. The EU cannot expect ACP governments to adhere to foreign demands that are unpopular among their domestic constituencies. Economically punishing ACP countries for human rights violations will impede and reverse progress toward the Agreement’s objectives of eradicating poverty and integrating those countries into the global economy. Sanctions yield an array of unintended and damaging consequences, including an increase in poverty and unemployment as well as deterioration of public health.
Sanctions increase human rights violations.

Political leaders in targeted states perceive and publicly represent sanctions as an affront to sovereignty and national unity. Facing an external threat, they are able to divert public attention and rally it against the sender. Under these conditions, leaders are able to exploit sanctions to broaden their base of support and justify further crackdown against the domestic opposition minority.

A study of the human rights effects of economic sanctions from 1981 to 2000 finds that so-called ‘smart’ human rights sanctions increase the rate of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, political imprisonment, and torture; the scope of the sanctions is positively correlated with the harm caused. Additionally, sanctions produce even more harmful effects when issued multilaterally.

Sanctions would not improve LGBT status

For the use of sanctions to be justified, the EU needs to have a reasonable probability of success. There is little reason to believe that sanctions would stimulate recognition of LGBT rights. The EU must wrest with the fact that regimes discriminating against the LGBT community are reflecting the broad popular sentiment. A 2014 Pew survey finds that 98% of Ghanaians, 93% of Ugandans, 88% of Kenyans, and 85% of Nigerians consider homosexuality immoral.

An ACP government that caves to sanctions would galvanise a majority of the population against the regime. Sanctions undermine the political stability necessary to affect human rights conditions.

For the human rights status to improve for LGBT people in
ACP countries, the people’s hearts and minds must first be won. Economic punishments and threats thereof will not attract any audience to European values and norms.

Conclusions

Before levying sanctions, the EU should thoroughly assess the extent by which LGBT rights violations impede collaborating to attain the objectives of the Cotonou Agreement. Furthermore, the Article 8 of the Agreement clearly specifies a dialogue, which implies a positive level of negotiation that may not result in tangible policy change.

The main risk of applying sanctions is creating a hostile environment for cooperation, which could produce results on the opposite spectrum of those anticipated. It can be expected that, although sanctions would have immediate, short-term results, they would fail to produce significant social change in the long run, since they would be addressing (i) political institutions, not society as a whole, and (ii) the result of certain social prejudices and tensions, not their cause. It should also be seen what the outcome of applying sanctions in other fields was (e.g. arms trade, drugs,organised crime), in contrast to positive conditionality. 

As a solution, EU actions in the fight against sexual and gender discrimination would be more successful by appealing to dialogue. In this manner, the level of the approach would be enlarged, incorporating the engagement with not only the governments, but also with civil society actors and NGOs.

“Recent moves to criminalise homosexuality and to impose severe prison sentences on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people constitute an unacceptable violation of the basic rights of individuals. Additionally, appropriate measures should be taken against countries who continue to criminalise homosexuality or pass even more repressive laws. LGBTI rights are human rights!”

Martin Schulz, European Parliament President, Fourth EU-Africa Summit, 2014

Some Previous posts:
African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels. 2010

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"  2010

European Parliament consents to EU-ACP partnership with reservations on missing sexual orientation discrimination clauses 2013

Historic EU-Africa Summit overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws 2014

EU Parliament human rights report addresses LGBTI criminalisation, trans rights and same-sex unions worldwide

Uganda and Nigeria: European Parliament calls for targeted sanctions over new laws

European Parliament: Include LGBT non-discrimination clause in future agreement with African, Caribbean & Pacific States

Historic EU-Africa Summit overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws

The fourth EU-Africa Summit is taking place in Brussels since yesterday, and although not officially on the agenda, extremely harsh new anti-LGBT laws are on leaders’ minds.

MEPs demonstrating against anti-LGBT laws in Plenary

The summit brings together the heads of state and government from the European Union and the African continent, as well as EU and African Union leaders. They will discuss political and economic ties, as well as human rights.

However, discussions are overshadowed by anti-LGBT laws recently adopted in Ugandaand Nigeria, and currently discussed in the Ethiopian Parliament. National politicians are pushing to follow suit in Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kenya.

Anti-LGBT laws were also at the heart of the Pan-African-European Parliamentary Summit, on Monday and Tuesday. Speaking to the Parliamentary Summit, European Parliament President Martin Schulz called the new laws “a disgrace” and “an unacceptable violation of the basic rights of individuals.”

He also stressed “the need to redirect aid to civil society and other organizations that fight against exclusion and discrimination based on sexual preference.”

His statement was met with resistance by many African MPs. The outcome declaration of the parliamentary summit reveals the divergence on the issue.

Michael Cashman MEP, Co-President of the LGBT Intergroup, reacted: “The bushfire of anti-LGBT legislation that is spreading across Africa must be stopped. It is fuelled by the lies of US evangelical missionaries, repeated by some African leaders who seek to hide their own political incompetence and mask corruption scandals.”

Olle Schmidt MEP, Member of the ACP-EU delegation and Member of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “African leaders and politicians are still not respecting the fundamental rights of all their citizens, basing LGBT-hate on the false argument that homosexuality is not African.”

“Human rights and minority rights are universal, and we cannot accept these laws. It is time for the EU to look at the restrictive measures available under the Cotonou-agreement. Trampling human rights should come with economic consequences.”

European Parliament consents to EU-ACP partnership with reservations on missing sexual orientation discrimination clauses

Let's back track a bit in previous posts; in March 2010 we saw the African Caribbean and Pacific states refusing to include any remote look of gay rights in the agreement, then the 2nd revision in June it was again excluded. In November 2010 the ACP issued a declaration "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"

Fast forward to November 2011 in the revision for 2007 - 2013 the ACP still held out on any form of LGBT rights or discrimination due to sexual orientation. Now ............

Last week the European Parliament gave its legal consent to the updated Cotonou Agreement, a multilateral treaty between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific states. The Parliament expressed strong reservations about human rights in relation to sexual orientation.

Michael Cashman and Michèle Striffler MEPs

The Cotonou Agreement governs diplomatic, trade and aid relationships between the EU and 79 African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

The treaty was last amended in 2010, and all EU and ACP Member States must now ratify it, and the European Parliament consent to it.

Article 8.4 of the revised Cotonou Agreement newly foresees including “political issues of mutual concern or of general significance” in joint talks, including “discrimination of any kind”.

It reads as follows:

8.4. The dialogue shall focus, inter alia, on specific political issues of mutual concern or of general significance for the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement, such as the arms trade, excessive military expenditure, drugs, organised crime or child labour, or discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The dialogue shall also encompass a regular assessment of the developments concerning the respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance. 

But the new list of grounds fails to mention sexual orientation, something the European Parliament had demanded.

In a resolution adopted Thursday, the European Parliament gave its legal consent to the amended treaty, but expressed “its strongest reservations about parts of the Agreement which do not reflect the position of the European Parliament and the values of the Union”.

The Parliament “urge[d] all parties to revise the unsatisfactory clauses” in the update due in 2015, ”including the explicit introduction of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”.

32.  Calls for negotiations to reinforce the principle of non-negotiable human rights clauses and sanctions for failure to respect such clauses, inter alia with regard to discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and towards people living with HIV/AIDS;

Michael Cashman MEP, Rapporteur for the European Parliament on the subject, explained: “The article on political dialogue wasn’t reworded in accordance with the Parliament’s wishes. The ACP side opposed including sexual orientation in the treaty, which is worrying since 38 ACP states still criminalize homosexuality.”

“The European Commission must now use the next two years before the third revision of the text to make progress on this crucial point.”

Michèle Striffler MEP, Shadow Rapporteur for the EPP group and a member of the LGBT Intergroup, added: “Non-discrimination is absolutely essential to our relationship with ACP countries, including on grounds of sexual orientation. Recent arrests and homophobic laws in Nigeria, Cameroon or Uganda show once again that we cannot make any compromise in this regard.”

Second revision of Cotonou agreement 2007-2013 financial framework of development assistance .... LGBT rights?

As the furor continues over the threat to deny aid to African countries who maintain anti gay positions the new Cotonou Agreement when fully perused seemed to have left out the whole business of LGBT rights, let us also not forget that the African Caribbean and Pacific ACP countries had strong opposition to any move that seemed as an imposition of attachments to benefits in exchange for some lgbt rights. 

In November last year they had issued a threat of sorts in the form of:

African, Caribbean & Pacific issue declaration to EU "To refrain from any attempts to impose its values which are not freely shared"

and in March they: African, Caribbean & Pacific Countries refuse to include declaration of gay rights in Brussels.

• Negotiations were concluded on 19/03/2010.
• Official signature ceremony took place in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, on 23/06/2010.
• Revised Cotonou agreement will be applicable on a provisional basis from 01/11/2010.

The Cotonou Agreement is the most comprehensive partnership agreement between developing countries and the EU. Since 2000, it has been the framework for the EU's relations with 79 countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) . The first revision took place in 2005 and prepared the ground for the

The second revision  adapts the partnership to changes which have taken place over the last decade, in particular:

• The growing importance of regional integration in ACP countries and in ACP-EU cooperation is reflected. Its role in fostering cooperation and peace and security, in promoting growth and in tackling cross-border challenges is emphasized. In Africa, the continental dimension is also recognized, and the African Union becomes a partner of the EU-ACP relationship.
• Security and fragility : no development can take place without a secure environment. The new agreement highlights the interdependence between security and development and tackles security threats jointly. Attention is paid to peace building and conflict prevention. A comprehensive approach combining diplomacy, security and development cooperation is developed for situations of State fragility.
• Our ACP partners face major challenges if they are to meet the Millennium Development Goals,  food security, HIV-AIDS and sustainability of fisheries. The importance of each of these areas for sustainable development, growth and poverty reduction is underlined, and joint approaches for our cooperation are now agreed.
• For the first time, the EU and the ACP recognize the global challenge of climate change as a major subject for their partnership. The parties commit to raising the profile of climate change in their development cooperation, and to support ACP efforts in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.
• The trade chapter of the Agreement reflects the new trade relationship and the expiry of preferences at the end of 2007. It reaffirms the role of the Economic Partnership Agreements to boost economic development and integration into the world economy. The revised Agreement highlights the challenges ACP countries are facing to integrate better into the world economy, in particular the effects of preference erosion. It therefore underlines the importance of trade adaptation strategies and aid for trade .
• More actors in the partnership : the EU has been promoting a broad and inclusive partnership with ACP partners. The new agreement clearly recognizes the role of national parliaments, local authorities, civil society and private sector.
• More impact, more value for money : This second revision is instrumental in putting in practice the internationally agreed aid effectiveness principles, in particular donor coordination. It will also untie EU aid to the ACP countries to reduce transaction costs. For the first time, the role of other EU policies for the development of ACP countries is recognized and the EU commits to enhance the coherence of those policies to this end.

Overview of ACP-EC-Partnership Agreement ("The Cotonou Agreement")

European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for providing Community assistance for development cooperation under the Cotonou Agreement. The EDF is funded by the EU Member State on the basis of specific contribution keys. Each EDF is concluded for a multi-annual period.

The "Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part and the European Community and its Member States of the other part" was signed on 23 June 2000 in Cotonou, Bénin ? hence the name " ACP-EC Partnership Agreement" or "Cotonou Agreement". It was concluded for a twenty-year period from March 2000 to February 2020, and entered into force in April 2003. It was for the first time revised in June 2005, with the revision entering into force on 1 July 2008.

The Cotonou Agreement is a global agreement, introducing important changes and ambitious objectives while preserving the 'acquis' of 25 years of ACP-EC cooperation.

Compared to preceding agreements and conventions shaping EC's development cooperation, the Cotonou Agreement represents further progress in a number of aspects. It is designed to establish a comprehensive partnership, based on three complementary pillars:

• development cooperation,
• economic and trade cooperation, and
• the political dimension.

The objectives of the Cotonou Agreement
<>The partnership is centred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy (Art. 1 of Cotonou Agreement). The fundamental principles of the Cotonou Agreement

• equality of the partners and ownership of the development strategies;
• participation (central governments as the main partners, partnership open to different kinds of other actors)
• pivotal role of dialogue and the fulfilment of mutual obligations
• differentiation and regionalisation

The actors of the Cotonou Agreement

• The actors of cooperation are:
• States (authorities and/or organisations of states at local, national and regional level);
• Non-state actors (private sector; economic and social partners, including trade union organisations, civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics).

The implementation of the Cotonou Agreement
The 10^th EDF covers the period from 2008 to 2013 and has been allocated ? 22.7 billion; it was established between the EU Member States by Internal Agreement. In comparison to the 9^th EDF which covered the period 2000 to 2007, the initial amount available has increased by almost 65 % (the 9^th EDF was initially allocated ? 13.8 billion for 2000-2007).

The cooperation with the ACP States funded from the EDF is complemented by development cooperation funded from the EC budget, through budgetary instruments - the Development Cooperation Instrument, the Instrument for Stability, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and the European Humanitarian Aid Instrument.

Revision clause:
The Cotonou Agreement provides for a revision clause which foresees that the agreement is adapted every five years till 2020.

In accordance with Article 95 Cotonou Agreement, the main reasons for the Second Revision of the Cotonou Agreement are:

• to preserve the relevance and the outstanding character of the Partnership between ACP and EU countries;
• to adapt the Agreement to recent major changes in international and ACP-EC relations;
• to further develop several themes that are essential for both parties:
• • the political dimension, institutional issues and sector specific policy issues;
  • economic cooperation, regional integration and trade;
  • development finance cooperation, including humanitarian and emergency assistance and new development advances in aid programming and management.

The contracting parties and the "ACP Group of States"
The Cotonou Agreement established a unique partnership between the ACP States on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States on the other hand.

The notion of "ACP States" goes back to the "ACP Group of States", formally established in 1975 with the Georgetown Agreement , which was initially signed by 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific states. Today, the ACP Group of States counts 79 countries , 78 of them signatories of the Cotonou-Agreement (with Cuba being the exception). S outh Africa is a contracting party of the Cotonou Agreement, but not all the provisions apply to the cooperation between South Africa and the EC (see protocol 3 of the Cotonou Agreement).

The ACP Group of States has its own institutions and decision making processes. It relates with the European Community through the joint institutions of the Cotonou Agreement.

When the initial news of the intention as espoused by David Cameron on GLBTQJA Wordpress I had expressed my concerns about the perception of countries being forced to adopt gay rights, we saw what happened when out going Prime Minister Golding made mention of us not caving in to foreign imposition during the invented gay marriage debate and the Charter of Rights.  My two cents then was:

My two cents

But what will that do though in the long run if most states and including Jamaica outside of the region mentioned in the article have a strong beliefs or perception that homosexuality is an import and that actions such as this are forcing the hand of countries with “christian principles” and “high moral values” to capitulate to the powerful gay lobby from first world nations? yet The Prime Minister David Cameron is not gay as far as we know but could be viewed as a puppet in the scheme of this with the pressure coming and positions from the European Union side of things and other bodies such as the United Nations on sexual orientation.

Is forcing countries to comply the way to go?

Or hitting them economically?
Seems there is no choice as our leaders just can't get passed holding on to power by playing to the gallery in the so called anti gay majority.

continue HERE

Peace and tolerance

H