Minister Golding trying to manipulate anti-gay sentiments (Jamaica Observer Editorial) .........

I don't normally agree with the Observer on many fronts especially when they sometimes engage in gay baiting but this editorial in recent times as the Justice Minister desperately seeks support for the CCJ I have to concur. The following was published today:

also see a previous post: Justice Minister exploits homophobia to gain CCJ support

We've always held Senator Mark Golding in high regard. For we have found him to be rational and one who applies intellectual rigour to debate.

We don't always agree with Senator Golding's positions on some issues, but we have always admired and respected the passion with which he defends his views, as well as the fact that he doesn't seem to engage in trying to impose his opinions on other people.

Therefore, we were extremely surprised to hear Senator Golding, who is also the minister of justice in the current Government, resorting to what amounts to scaremongering in a discussion on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) last Sunday.

The debate on the Government's intention to replace the United Kingdom-based Privy Council with the CCJ as Jamaica's final appellate court has been vibrant and, indeed, healthy for our democracy.

Senator Golding and his colleagues in the Government have raised a number of arguments to support their position, among them is that the Privy Council represents one of the last vestiges of colonialism, and that the CCJ is set up as an itinerant court, whereas the Privy Council is not.

The latter point, however, is not supported by the Privy Council's offer, made five years ago, to hear cases in Jamaica.

Proponents of the CCJ have also argued that the judges of the Privy Council are not au fait with Caribbean culture, as opposed to those who sit on the CCJ.

On Sunday, Senator Golding, in making his case for the CCJ, pointed to the fact that the Privy Council is resident in England, a country that recognises same-sex unions.

He also said that he had no doubt that the buggery law will be tested in the Constitutional Court of Jamaica, and that that test will be taken to the final court.

"We feel that it's appropriate that when that goes to a final court, it should be a final court of judges that come from the societies of the Caribbean which share a common identity, a common history, a common culture, and a common set of values around these issues," Senator Golding said.

He then said that the Privy Council reflects the values of contemporary British society, which has essentially embraced the rights of the LGBT community.

With that in mind, he proposed that it was appropriate that, when the challenge is made to the buggery law, "decisions on those types of issues should be by a final court that comes from the same place that we are".

What Senator Golding is trying to accomplish here is fear of the Privy Council in order to manipulate Jamaicans' opposition to same-sex unons. It is, we believe, most unbecoming of him. It also flies in the face of his Government's position on the Buggery Act, which was clearly stated by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller in the National Leadership Debate just before the 2011 General Election, when her party was in Opposition.

Since that debate, the Government has not kept its word to review the buggery law, a fact that has disappointed the LGBT community, even as we all know that the Administration will not move a muscle to keep the promise as it would infuriate the wider society.

But even more troubling is the perception to be drawn from Senator Golding's remarks that the CCJ would not form an independent opinion on this issue. For, implicit in his comments is the spectre of political interference in the CCJ, and there, we hold, is where many Jamaicans have a concern.

ENDS

The minister' pitiful response only makes matters worse in my views when he was interviewed on Nationwide. His response in part was:

"The point I was seeking to make which was at a small church hall meeting in Vineyard Town; to create a final court is a fundamental issue because it's a final court as the ultimate arbiter of legal issues in your country; and especially it is the final court that interprets and applies the broad principles in one's constitution especially the charter of rights; my own view is that at this time 'round in our country we ought to have a final court reflects who we are and comes from the societies of the Caribbean that share a common history as I said; values and attitudes and cultures and mores.

Sometimes the issues that go to the final court are not just clear cut issues of applying law to fact but rather applying the broad political views expressed in the charter of rights for example ....."

It is not worth my time quoting the rest of this garbage basically as he only repeated his stance in a continued long-winded response.

So the conscience vote is out, the buggery review is out, sensible discussion in the upper house is out and hence the push to take on a court that we feel will preserve the old 482 year old buggery law.

Pick sense out of nonsense yah man.

Peace & tolerance

also see:
JFLAG Tries to Clarify its Agenda

"Outdated" Bail Laws to be changed but Buggery Laws remain ... how convenient Mr.Golding? 2010

Jamaica Observer deliberately aiding the further discrediting of the remaining LGBTQ credibility

H 

The Gleaner Editorial to Anti gay Group Jamaica CAUSE - Good Tactic, Wrong CAUSE

It has not cooled since the rally on Sunday June 29th eh and the anti gay selective voices continue their foolishness as far as I am concerned while other societal ills get ignored and which are in some cases far more serious than peeking into people's bedrooms.

also see: More Pastoral Inappropriateness & Under-aged Victims... Silence from The Selective Religious Anti Gay Fundamentalists?

The following is the editorial from the Gleaner again obviously written by an outsider as the staff there seem not to have the balance to produce reasoning as this.

Good Tactic, Wrong CAUSE

Events at the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) summit in Antigua & Barbuda last week may have heralded the emergence of a Christian fundamentalist movement, with its inspiration, if not formal leadership, in Jamaica, as a pan-Caribbean political force.

At the meeting, the Community's heads of government issued a statement of support to efforts to eliminate stigma and discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS, which their agency established to coordinate a regional response to the diseases insists is "necessary to effectively combat the spread of HIV". Significantly, the leaders, according to their communiqué, deferred "full consideration" of a declaration on the matter by Pan-Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS (PANCAP) pending "consultations at the national level".

Among the proposed commitments in that declaration - which had more than implicit support from Denzil Douglas, the St Kitts-Nevis prime minister, who has responsibility for health in CARICOM's quasi-Cabinet and which was formalised at a stakeholder meeting in Jamaica that was addressed by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller - is that regional governments would, by 2015, remove laws that encourage stigma and discrimination against vulnerable communities, thus making them more likely to access services that limit the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Jamaica's buggery laws, which make anal sex, especially against male homosexuals, illegal and similar legislation across the region would be targeted for repeal.

In the face of the emergence of the evangelical-led anti-reform movement in the aftermath of the Brendan Bain affair, regional leaders, not least our own Mrs Simpson Miller, may have got cold feet. Just before the CARICOM meeting, a group called Churches Action Uniting Society for Emancipation (CAUSE) held a rally in Kingston, which attracted an estimated 25,000 people, where its leaders were vehement against the so-called gay agenda, which, really, is about advancing individual rights and keeping the State out of people's bedrooms.

But more ominous for Jamaica's political leaders were the urgings prior to the rally, and from the platform, for fundamentalist Christians to get themselves on the voters' register in order to have a say in any action by their government. Presumably, that means voting out any administration advancing the 'gay agenda', so-called, or keeping out any party aspiring to do so. Mrs Simpson Miller had promised to afford a parliamentary conscience vote on the buggery laws but may now be having second thoughts.

MUSCLE FLEXING

While the Jamaican leader's reservations, assuming that she is indeed rethinking her position, may have influenced the decision, her colleagues would not be oblivious to the muscle flexing and electoral implications in their own territories.

At the Jamaica rally, speakers promised that many church and other organisations would write to the CARICOM Secretariat in opposition to the PANCAP declaration. Many did - similar to the regional organisations that declared a lack of confidence in Brendan Bain for providing a supporting affidavit for the retention of Belize's buggery-type law. Hence their call on the University of the West Indies to remove Professor Bain as head of an organisation that provides anti-discrimination-infused training for people who work in HIV/AIDS.

The region's evangelicals have employed tactics used to good effect by their American partners, but, we believe, to the wrong cause. There is greater value in promoting economic integration than having sexual/moral commissars peeping into the bedrooms of consulting adults.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

ENDS

The communique that came from CARICOM specific to the justice for all matter since the meeting read as follows:

"PAN-CARIBBEAN PARTNERSHIP AGAINST HIV/AIDS (PANCAP) JUSTICE FOR ALL ROADMAP

Heads of Government received a report on the Pan-Caribbean Partnership against HIV and AIDS (PANCAP) Justice for All Roadmap, a key deliverable of its Justice for All Programme, from the Rt. Honourable Dr. Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, in his capacity as CARICOM Lead Head of Government for Human Resource Development, Health and HIV and AIDS in the CARICOM Quasi-Cabinet.

Heads of Government reaffirmed their support for efforts to eliminate stigma and discrimination in the context of HIV/AIDS, an action that has been identified as necessary to effectively combat the spread of HIV.

Heads of Government reviewed the Declaration entitled Getting to Zero Discrimination Through Justice For All and agreed to defer full consideration pending consultations at the national level."

ENDS

In response to that the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society a member of Jamaica CAUSE expressed concerns that the communique is a cove up for governments to sneak in change in legislation removing buggery laws and groups such as theirs are only told of it after the fact. They claimed they wrote to the secretariat on the getting some clarification and that the consultations should include them and not selected groups. 

Obviously the theocratic agenda is on although their press release on the same day as the rally claimed they are not seeking such but while persons want the CCJ to be our new final court, or to remove the Privy Council and other colonial remnants this anti gay group wants to hold on to a near 500 year old law that is not relevant in today's world and even the very country that gave it to us had removed it. What is even more disturbing is that this Jamaica CAUSE has an old goal from its predecessors the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship as one of its main tenets that of not allowing any coverage under the Charter of Rights and or constitution to protect or cover persons from discrimination due to sexual orientation. 

Lest we forget the 1999 draft of the charter during the parliamentary submission had the coverage but thanks to persons like Shirley Richards it went via all kinds of deceptive manoeuvrings and then these people say they are Christians?

Meanwhile another PNP member has come out saying he wants a referendum instead of the suggested conscience vote by Mrs Simpson Miller obviously in fear of curry favour pandering to the vocal right:

Peace and tolerance

H

The Jamaica Civil Society Coalition (JCSC) response to anti-gay mass meeting comes late in the day (Observer Editorial)

Late in the day indeed as the Observer editorial noticed (agreeing with them on this one but the gay-baiting in recent times hell no!) but the bypassing of the CDA in the JFJ/CVCC funded Sex ed manual is obviously being used by the writer to further obfuscate the bigger discussion of the conflict of interest in the Bain matter, although in the end the CVCC/JFJ's own conflict of interest came through quite clearly; sadly our advocates have failed to properly and timely speak to current issues, I am not surprised as it is the some of the same folks who are JFLAG who also sit on the CVCC so no wonder we cannot have clear separation on decision making and various imperatives and dithering hinder pro-activity.

Two questions also come to mind:

Why isn't the JCSC statement on their or JFLAG's website in full for such an important time as this?

Why didn't the Observer just publish the damned thing in full?

The Press Association of Jamaica, PAJ released a short statement on the matter of the press conference of CVCC as well:

In light of the current public discussion surrounding the press conference convened last week by the Caribbean Coalition of Vulnerable Communities, the Press Association of Jamaica wishes to state:

1. The role of the journalist is to ask questions and seek answers on behalf of the public and to pursue the sole agenda of getting to the truth.

2. It is expected that journalists will always be respectful in the conduct of their duties as we equally demand the respect of the people we interact with on a daily basis.

3. The press is the voice of the people and cannot be shut up or shut down at will in any democracy, regardless of threats, condescending tones, remarks or any other means to belittle or denigrate.

4. The PAJ is urging journalists to operate by the agreed Code of Practice at all times as we continue the quest to serve the public.

ENDS

The Observer editorial published today read as follows:

The Jamaica Civil Society Coalition (JCSC) -- whose membership includes J-FLAG, the gay lobby group -- has issued a very sensible statement, spurred no doubt by Sunday's well-attended mass meeting by the church and allied groups against homosexuality.

The sentiments expressed in the JCSC statement issued on July 1, 2014, are well considered and, in our view, are a viable basis on which the Jamaican nation can conduct the social negotiations about the homosexual lifestyle, repeal of the so-called buggery law and about finding a way to ensure that we can all get along, despite our differences.

Pity, of course, that the statement came so late in the day and had to await, apparently, the flexing of its considerable muscles by the church and the many groups that massed in Half-Way-Tree, St Andrew.

As we have pointed out time and again in this space, the gay leadership must accept responsibility for the manner in which it has conducted its campaign to secure rights for the homosexual constituency. We continue to believe that the society in general, including the church, had been gradually ceding space to the gay members of the Jamaican family, until the perceived bullying began, evidenced by the Professor Brendan Bain issue and latterly the infiltration of private homes for children with anal sex material.

Prior to that, there was the attempt to slip similar material into the school textbook stream, without the kind of consultation and approval that goes with the process. Assuming that J-FLAG approved the statement, we hope that some important lessons have been learnt. In this vein, we highlight and commend the following excerpts from the JCSC statement:

"The Jamaica Civil Society Coalition is deeply concerned about the manner in which the current debate about the repeal or retention of the sections of the Offences against the Person Act related to anal intercourse is being conducted. We urge all the individuals, groups and organisations involved to advocate their cause in a manner which reflects a greater spirit of mutual respect and consideration.

"Whatever our differences...Every Jamaican citizen is deserving of a hearing and of equal protection under the law of the land and under the principles of human rights to which we are signatories...We need to bring an end to inflammatory and dismissive statements and to the stigmatisation of entire groups based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, religious convictions or other difference of whatever kind. Indeed, such approaches invariably lead to social strife as well as intentional and unintentional harm...

"We, in all our diversity, share a common humanity. None of us is well served by the hard line, condemnatory or disrespectful tone of many utterances on the topic. We must exercise care that we do not create divisions so deep that we lose the potential for working together on some of the many other challenges we face as a nation. We call on all the actors in the debate to set an example of leadership grounded in a willingness to permit all voices to be heard."

ENDS

I find it ridiculous that after so many newscasts in days on the Jamaica CAUSE movement coupled with a snapshot of their press conference where their real goals which include:

1) threats to government not to repeal buggery (although JFLAG's late in the day change to decriminalization has fallen on deaf ears thus far)

2) blocking any attempts to allow legislation protecting individuals from discrimination due to sexual orientation

are quite clear it is only a short interview on CVM TV and on RJR that the agency could have done when they are known for churning out press releases from what I call the conveyor belt (even while I was there) when the J is needed they are soft in coming but otherwise they overkill.

Years of work and some gains have been lost all due to poor management again on the agencies part and conflicting imperatives while the real frontline issues that are screaming for attention get sidelined. The homeless LGBT youth in New Kingston are getting some attention again via a radio special and the defunct Safe House has not been even hinted to; yet another whitewashing of the abandonment of the older populations of homeless and displaced MSM mostly due to rowdy behaviour yet the psycho-social interventions were never even rolled out to address them.

Step-n-fetch-it advocacy once again befalls us, at least those of us who are looking for more than just mere dribble and only remote feel goodness.

Peace and tolerance indeed is needed, tolerance to continue the slowness and lack of pro-activity from JFLAG with all the incestuous obligations of its management elsewhere and from the madness out there with hysteria and paranoia ruling the day.

also see: Why did CVCC & JFJ not Fund a Project/Home for Homeless LGBT Youth in New Kingston instead of the Children’s Home Fiasco

H

The Gleaner Editorial to Anti Gay Group - In Whose CAUSE?

So at least the Gleaner has been slowly redeeming itself via its editorials maybe written by external persons but a so called set of senior staff writers seem to prefer to dive into the realm of tabloid journalism, walk out of press conferences(as the material do not suit them) and near inciting of attacks of LGBT persons while seeking to discredit the crisis communication arm of the struggle and the incident listings over the years.

The Press Association of Jamaica, PAJ released a short statement on the matter of the press conference of CVCC as well:

In light of the current public discussion surrounding the press conference convened last week by the Caribbean Coalition of Vulnerable Communities, the Press Association of Jamaica wishes to state:

1. The role of the journalist is to ask questions and seek answers on behalf of the public and to pursue the sole agenda of getting to the truth.

2. It is expected that journalists will always be respectful in the conduct of their duties as we equally demand the respect of the people we interact with on a daily basis.

3. The press is the voice of the people and cannot be shut up or shut down at will in any democracy, regardless of threats, condescending tones, remarks or any other means to belittle or denigrate.

4. The PAJ is urging journalists to operate by the agreed Code of Practice at all times as we continue the quest to serve the public.

ENDS

Truth be told there are some crisis cases that have been kept alive by mainstream media that cannot stand up to scrutiny from now till eternity such as the Peter King, Brian Williamson or even the last one Bebe Stevenson matters as those have been deemed more on the line of exploitive cases and other extraordinary circumstantial causations but it does not mean that there are not genuine homophobic cases leading to serious injuries or casualties.

Here is the Gleaner's editorial firstly:

As last Sunday's anti-gay rally organised by evangelical Christians confirmed, Brendan Bain's sacking by the University of the West Indies, and its supposed implication for free speech, was merely a springboard for something more significant: the fundamentalists are continuing their transformation into a formidable political movement.

An estimated 25,000 people turned up at the rally - a number of which none of the Jamaica's political parties would be unmindful. In that context, a significant, if under-reported, message of the rally was the call for evangelicals to get themselves on the voters' register and thereby be in a position to vote in the next general election. For now, the policies they want to influence are those related to gay rights, or more specifically the retention of the law against buggery, which is the basis for the illegality of male homosexuality.

"As the church and citizens go to vote, that (any policy to remove the buggery regulations) would certainly be one of the issues that would be considered," explained Stevenson Samuels of the New Testament Church of God and the leader of the evangelically grounded group called Churches Action Uniting Society for Emancipation (CAUSE).

But gay rights are hardly the boundary of their concern. In fact, many of the persons who are at the centre of CAUSE previously campaigned for a restrictive law on abortion, in addition to their effort, with success, to have the Jamaica Constitution define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

So, while they may not be as politically battle-hardened as their American counterparts, they are not without experience - and apparently money to finance their activities. Nor is this foray on to the political battlefield by Jamaican Christian fundamentalists an entirely new phenomenon. In the 1970s, they spoke loudly against the perceived intention of Michael Manley's People's National Party (PNP) to turn Jamaica to communism.

irrelevant issues

The ideological issues of three and a half decades ago are no longer relevant. Today's Jamaican evangelical leadership, like their cousins in the United States, are fighting the so-called culture wars, intent on turning back a liberalism that sees same-sex sexual orientation not as a fundamental right, but as an intolerable aberration. Viewed through this prism, Professor Bain's affidavit to a Belizean court in favour of a church group seeking to maintain that country's anti-buggery law - even as he heads an HIV/AIDS health-delivery organisation whose mandate includes the elimination of stigma and discrimination against vulnerable groups - is understandable and right.

In the immediate circumstance, the posture of the fundamentalists is hostile to the PNP, which forms the government, whose leader, Portia Simpson Miller, has declared not merely tolerance, but inclusiveness towards gays. She promised a parliamentary conscience vote on the buggery law.

The Opposition wants to put the issue to a referendum, for which it has the support of CAUSE - quite understandable, given Jamaica's social and political dynamics. But even as it perceives immediate political gains from the current policy congruence with the evangelicals, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) should act with caution in engaging in an opportunist embrace with this constituency. We, in this regard, draw the JLP's attention to America Republican Party and its capture by radical fundamentalism/Tea Party movement, rendering it incapable of formulating a broad, inclusive agenda, worthy of a modern, functional state.

The opinions on the Gleaner's page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

ENDS

Jamaica CAUSE's agenda is clear as shown in this clip from a press conference they had added to that as well is the intent to block any coverage under the Charter of Rights to protect persons from discrimination due to sexual orientation as done by their predecessors the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship under the leadership of Shirley Richards and aided by fugitive assisting integrity challenged Reverend Al Miller. 

Sadly as I have postured elsewhere the case file management systems and regular updates by the relevant agencies in this case JFLAG are much to be desired so the response is lacking in terms of bringing to bear the realities on the ground. It is indeed sad that a section of the religious community is up to this suppression of personal freedoms when they are pushing a false dichotomy of persecution of freedom of speech supposedly but after the last four weeks or so their own fear-mongering may become the beginning of their undoing sadly since hardened positions have been drawn.

also see:

Jamaica CAUSE issues Veiled threat to Govt to not Repeal The Buggery Law

Anti Gay Group Jamaica CAUSE told We're Not Into You! Gays No Threat To Straight Folk

Betty Ann Blaine Deliberately Conflates Same Gender Attraction & Child Abuse at Christian Anti Gay Mass Rally & in Public Advocacy

More Overreaction to the Jamaicans for Justice Sex Education Course & Media Senationalism

Betty Ann Blaine on Poverty, children and the Buggery Law .... and that awful confusion of homosexuality with paedophilia 2012

Hardened Positions by Religious Fanatics & Their LGBT Detractors Will Only Leave More Blood on the Floor

Anti Gay Voice & 'Child Rights' Advocate Betty-Ann Blaine Taken to Task on Public Advocacy

Why did CVCC & JFJ not Fund a Project/Home for Homeless LGBT Youth in New Kingston instead of the Children’s Home Fiasco that now obtains?

Justice Minister reiterates his personal position on the Buggery Law, Anal Intercourse, Consent & Privacy, government position

J-FLAG now advocating for decriminalisation of same-sex acts

Pastors Push Enumeration As Hedge Against Buggery Repeal (Gleaner July 1 2014) obviously the JFLAG change in the call to decriminalization has gone unheard deliberately or unnoticed. So much for pro-activity from our goodly advocates

The False Dichotomy of the religious right on the LGBT advocacy Godlessness

Espeut, West says “Homophobia” was invented to abuse Christians as hate speech

Betty Ann Blaine & foreign religious zealots continue their paranoia & misrepresentations of male homosexuality

Church claims future victimization if buggery is decriminalized in Jamaica

Spilling homosexual blood .... Observer Headline 29.11.09

Lesbians Do Have Morals 2009

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

Professor's Bain's Testimony Threatened Foreign Funding (Gleaner letter)

Lessons to learn from The Professor Bain Matter?

Anti Gay Voice & 'Child Rights' Advocate Betty-Ann Blaine Taken to Task on Public Advocacy

Ian Boyne: Bain exercised terribly poor strategic judgement

The Deliberate Misuse of the “Sexual Grooming” Term by Antigay Fanatics to Promote Their Hysteria

Anti gay religious voices where are they? .... Pastor charged with sexual assault

'UWI had no choice but to dismiss Prof Bain' says Professor Rosemarie Bell Antoine (OAS Rapporteur)

Pro-Bain Protesters To Meet With UWI Today

Buggery the only thing that makes church butts sore?

Betty Ann Blaine on Poverty, children and the Buggery Law .... and that awful confusion of homosexuality with paedophilia

Blaine will be her own victim (Observer Letter 11.08.10)

Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society continues its “HIV is a gay disease” campaign with more deception added

What goes on in the minds of the overly religious?

BETTY ANN BLAINE’S ARRANT NONSENSE REQUEST OF PETER KING TAPES

THAT WON’T STOP AIDS, BETTY ANN SAYS GAY LAWYER

BUY NO RINGS, YOU WON’T WED; RELIGIOUS FEAR-MONGERING ON GAY MARRIAGE & THE BUGGERY LAW CONTINUES

Comments from the PNP quarters aren't helping the situation either in some sense as there are differing views on the way forward

MP Raymond Pryce often labelled as gay gave his opinion recently at a Jamaica Observer forum.

Peace and tolerance really needed at this time as the silly season continues, hope we can ride this one out in one piece.

H

Prof Bain's Endgame? (Gleaner Editorial)

Source

Having allowed his supporters to peddle the fallacy that his sacking was an attack on academic freedom and free speech, we can now only wonder at the intent of Professor Brendan Bain.

For by failing to declare the larger contextual truth, Professor Bain is helping not only to deepen the poles between protagonists in the gay-rights debate but distracting attention from, and potentially weakening, a project to which he has made an invaluable contribution: the delivery of care to people living with HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean.

Professor Bain is a pioneer in the field. Until his firing a week ago by the University of the West Indies (UWI), he ran Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Network, a regional agency that operates under the umbrella of the university, but is funded mostly by foreign donors. Having retired as an academic, his job at CHART, stripped to the core, was essentially as an administrator.

There is, however, confusion - deliberately or otherwise - among Professor Bain's supporters.

The genesis of his disengagement is an opinion he delivered to a Belizean court on behalf of interests opposing a gay man's challenge of the constitutionality of that country's buggery law. Bain argued that men who have sex with men have a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS, even in countries where the act was legal.

Professor Bain's critics insist that his use of research data was selective. The more important fact is that many regional HIV/AIDS support, human-rights and gay groups with which CHART has to interface, declared a loss of confidence in Professor Bain's stewardship.

Their point is that CHART exists in a larger context than the mechanics of training health workers and caregivers. And Professor Bain had revealed a conflict of interest which could undermine an emerging ethos towards confronting HIV/AIDS in this region.

For instance, Pan Caribbean Partnership on HIV/AIDS (PANCAP) - the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) agency that leads the region's response to the disease and one of CHART's core partners - has among its strategic objectives the removal of punitive laws that perpetuate discrimination and stigma and cause vulnerable groups to shy away from access treatment.

The region's buggery laws, whose retention Professor Bain supported in the Belize affidavit, are among them.

Significant members

Moreover, CHART's advisory board is comcomprised of officials who represent organisations which generally subscribe to the position that such laws undermine the fight against HIV/AIDS.

"Laws that criminalise being HIV-positive, sexual behaviours such as anal sex, or sexual orientation, make it difficult to mount an effective HIV response. Persons who know their sexual behaviour or orientations are illegal are less likely either to go to health services or to speak openly about their sexual behaviour while there, thus limiting their treatment options and prevention efforts," wrote Dr Ernest Massiah, UNAIDS Caribbean representative and CHART board member.

But Professor Bain's supporters claim that the UWI caved in to a 'gay agenda', to the detriment of academic freedom and free speech - an absolute fallacy in this case.

Professor Bain is entitled to express his opinion on any topic. But if, outside the halls of academia, those publicly declared opinions are at variance with settled consensus of the agency he serves, leading to a loss of confidence in his leadership, he should leave with dignity.

As Professor Bain remains silent and the polarisation worsens, CHART is increasingly distracted. The losers are people with HIV/AIDS, straight or gay. That can't be Professor Bain's intent.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

Unruly gays worry store owners ............................

Just when we thought this issue would die here it comes again in the mainstream media with all the other unreported matters and the distractions from the Dwayne Jones transgender murder matter that is conflated by many as a homophobic crime when it is not so; the homeless men the last time we can recall had to move as the Millsborough house they had captured was destroyed and the subsequent house they took over was also closed up and they were forced to relocate with no definitive answer yet in the form of a shelter to address their concerns. Other homeless matters abound as well where a 19 year old had to beat a hasty retreat after his father threatened him with violence if he did not, he has since been assisted by a same gender loving sister temporarily; there are six other reports that have been brought to my attention that other community influentials are addressing since May of this year. Western Jamaica is also seeing its fair share of fallouts while the St Catherine group who were being helped by an interfaith set up are still going along seeking work with the weed wackers they have access to.

Now comes this article in today's star where the men have basically returned to New Kingston as they have nowhere else to go it seems.

Unruly gays worry business men in New Kingston:

A number of businesses along the top section of Knutsford Boulevard in New Kingston have been bemoaning the behaviour of some men who are said to be homosexuals who use the corridor for the hanging of clothing, sleeping, loitering and other activities.

Delroy Collington, speaking on behalf of one of the establishments along the corridor, said the men are devaluing the businesses and that they are considering closing down because of their behaviour.

"They pose a whole heap of threat. They are devaluing the businesses. I told one of them who was sleeping to get up and I had to hit him with a piece of board after he was peeing at the door. Dem bigger than the police. The hit cost me $10,000 in court. The chain line (used to separate a parking section) they use to hang up clothing. We are near closing down because of them. Believe me the police afraid of them," he said.

nuisance

Collington also added that it has become a nuisance and that people are having a hard time dealing with the men's behaviour. He said one morning he saw one of the men lying down and hugging another man.

Just a few steps away, a senior staff member at one of the money businesses also expressed concern over the way the men were behaving. While she acknowledged that the men's sexuality had nothing to do with her, it is their attitude and behaviour she cannot stand.

"There have been challenges. The clothing and the rowdy behaviour would deter anybody. We are not fighting against anyone's sexuality; it's just that the behaviour is distasteful. I have complained about it to a guy who had his clothes hanging on the chain. They are loitering and we are asking the police to do something about that," she said.

A sub-officer at the New Kingston Police Post said they have been receiving complaints from businesses with regards to the behaviour of these homosexual men.

"Several businesses are complaining about them. We have reports and it never stops. Loitering is not so much an offence you arrest them for, you just chase them away," the officer said.

ENDS

also see the Gleaner's editorial: Gay-baiting at state events

PM Should Decry Homophobic Bigotry says Gleaner but some questions & issues present themselves

The story of Maurice Tomlinson, a lecturer at the University of Technology (UTech), reported by this newspaper yesterday, reverberates with the insensitivity of supposed students of the law and at the same time highlights the mediaeval attitude that still largely prevails in Jamaica towards gays.
And having declared her principled position on the rights of gays, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller should add her voice to the protection of Mr Tomlinson's rights under the Constitution of Jamaica.
Maurice Tomlinson is an attorney. He also teaches law at UTech. He came into public notice more recently when it was reported in Canada that he had married his male partner.

In homophobic Jamaica, where a former prime minister declared that he would have no gays in his Cabinet and his successor waffled, equivocated on and parsed his response to the subject, Mr Tomlinson's action is a potential death sentence.

Myopic law students

Indeed, he has gone into hiding and has told this newspaper that he was advised by the police that it would be unsafe to appear on the UTech campus "because my security has been compromised". Put bluntly, Mr Tomlinson has received death threats.

The university law faculty has been unable, as yet, to find a substitute lecturer for Mr Tomlinson's course, and students were advised - apparently by Mr Tomlinson - to sit in with other lecturers.

What has surprised this newspaper is the response of some part-time students affected by the disruption - an apparent absence of sympathy or concern for a man whose life is reportedly in danger.
They are angry over personal scheduling difficulties caused by Mr Tomlinson's absence, complaining that even with the arrangement he attempted to put in place, "we will still be at a disadvantage".
We would be forgiven if we concluded that this lack of empathy and compassion by the affected law students betrays both deep moral failings and weak appreciation for the course of study on which they have embarked. Put another way, it would seem that the concentration of these UTech students is on certification. The substance of the law is secondary.

Breach to one, breach to all

What even early students of the law, like those taught by Mr Tomlinson, should have already learnt is that their rights as individuals cannot be secure if his can be trampled on with impunity. The ultimate protection of one's rights is a democratic society's adherence to the rule of law. There is no more fundamental right than the right to one's life, which, incidentally, is among the first named rights and freedoms protected in Section 13 (3)(a) of the Charter of Rights in Jamaica's Constitution.

Perhaps, in time, the peeved UTech students will appreciate that the application of the law has to be universal, and universally fair, for it to be worthy. Prime Minister Simpson Miller can help in promoting this understanding.

The prime minister displayed courage in defending people's right to lifestyles of their choice when she declared that sexual orientation would not be a criterion for membership in her Cabinet. She must repeat often that there is no right to impunity against people whose lifestyles the majority does not like. For a real test of a democracy is how it protects the rights of minorities.

The PM should also champion the cause for the repeal of the buggery law.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

ENDS

How much do we want from the Prime Minister in such a short space of time?, this is almost as dumb as the JFLAG error in stating a timeline within 100 days when the issue MUST be discussed then having to turn around and do damage control so as not to make it look like an ultimatum after the fire-storm from both inside the LGBT community and outside especially with that persistent thinking that the ruling party was funded by gay interests outside so as to push the battyman issue. 

Why should the PM only deal with this because it's Maurice Tomlinson, is he so special over all the others before and with him especially those persons who do their respective work quietly in the community without a song and dance? After all he chose to put himself out there so it comes with the repercussions.

The glaring contempt towards persons who work quietly in the local community is showing its head again as JFLAG operatives themselves have brought to bear when some rude criticisms have been brought to the fore regarding the recent departure of Mr. Tomlinson under questionable circumstances. He complained that the Observer for example published an unauthorised photo of him hence putting his life in danger yet he forgot to mention his very public television appearances long before the shots were seen in print and why did he send the shot of his signing the licence in Canada to a Catherine Porter of the Gay Star News? and the subsequent timing of this to coincide with the David Kato award collection in London with the large purse attached has left some doubt in the minds of many as professional dishonesty is reeking from all these circumstances. All the Observer had to do was republish the story under the creative commons license protection originally carried by Star News Canada written by the aforementioned author in a piece entitled: "Jamaican gay activist, Maurice Tomlinson, married a Torontonian" whils stating the source. The photo clearly showed it was courtesy of Tomlinson, if he did not want this issue out there why allow the overseas article to be put out in the first place?

All these set of circumstances so close to each other and so well timed does not look good. 

Criticisms have been rising about these and other issues and reputations are being re-examined to find out why is it some persons seem to easily benefit from activities in the name of defending the community? I have been on record to say it is all about superstardom and not about looking at the community as a whole, this first pass the post drama to see who will get the recognition is just too glaring these days while the least amongst us continue to struggle. The Gleaner also carried this piece: Threats force gay lecturer to flee which has had some reaction from influentials. This is how strong a comment that came from such a person:

"Frankly, from reading this article, I don't get a sense of someone who's been forced to "flee". People who "flee" don't have a return date scheduled. If someone is fleeing for their life because of circumstances beyond control, how exactly did he suddenly regain enough control to be able to"schedule" when his safety concerns had been resolved? What I do get a sense of is someone who's taking advantage of the reputation that Jamaica has gained, and using it to his own ends. That is, how convenient that such "safety concerns" emerge as significant right around the same time when he goes to London to go pick up his award?
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jamaican-activist-tomlinson-wins-first-david-kato-award

And who told the newspaper that he was away from work? Let me guess....

Suffice it to say, this story reeks of unprofessional and unethical behaviour on Maurice's part. It may well be that faculty members in Jamaica can and do mistreat students however they want - cancel classes, don't show up, don't give the students their grades, etc. - with no repercussions. But to use homophobia as the excuse for not showing up, ad to have the administration in knots over how to deal with this crisis, when I'm sure they sense that things are not as they appear - that is beyond selfish and self-involved.

I am totally sick and tired of lgbt Jamaican individuals manipulating the already hostile situation at home by making themselves into scapegoats and victims, just so they can appropriate resources and attention for themselves. I was wondering where the leaked story of the wedding was going, and I can already see.

In my opinion, there needs to be a total news lockout against Maurice Tomlinson unless what he's talking about or doing DIRECTLY involves broader community, and there's sufficient corroboration of his accounts. He is being very manipulative in his conduct, and is harming the movement in many ways. Others have pulled similar stunts in the past, but Maurice is taking the situation to a whole other level. And he's counting on the silence and gullibility of lgbt Jamaicans as well as the fears of straight people to help him accomplish whatever he's set his mind to, and which won't benefit anyone but himself. Enough already."

The comment when first made/posted was deleted from a Facebook group where JFLAG operatives converge by one of the administrators who work with the organization I have since gathered. Another dangerous precedence for muzzling and or dictatorship to the rest of the community? yet we ask for tolerance elsewhere.

also see: A marriage and another activist seeks asylum ............. 

ALSO AUDIO: 

Frankly this whole episode has stirred up a hornet's nest and the bigger issue of ethical professionalism is back at the forefront but for how long will it remain as usually when it does make centerstage some other items are quickly found to create a diversion.

Peace and tolerance

H

Backing Down On Buggery? Some Personal Rights Can Be Sacrificed For General Morality ............

Byron Buckley, 

THE RECENT political leadership debate has given new legs to the national discussion on the repeal or retention of the law against buggery.

Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller has proposed a review of the law, with legislators allowed to vote according to conscience, after consultations with constituents. Prime Minister Andrew Holness has indicated his willingness to reflect the views of the people or the status quo on the contentious law.

A review of the buggery law is timely and appropriate in light of the recent pressure from several of Jamaica's bilateral and multilateral partners to relax the provision. Our 50th year of Independence is a good point at which our society should pause and take stock of our cultural norms, values and mores; and, where appropriate, shed, reinforce or improve them.

The issues, from a jurisprudential perspective, include:
PRIVACY: the right of individuals to behave as they choose in the confines of their homes. Added to this is the notion of consensual behaviour.
MORALITY: Should or shouldn't the law be based on morality? And whose morality - private or public?
PRIVATE VS PUBLIC INTEREST: Where do we draw the line? How do we strike a balance?

There is a growing number of Jamaicans across the moral spectrum who are prepared to turn a blind eye to consenting adults - heterosexuals and homosexuals - engaging in consensual anal sex in the privacy of their homes. This view points to nascent support for the decriminalisation of buggery. As we review the buggery law, we must ask ourselves if freedom of consent and the right to privacy are sufficient grounds on which to repeal a law or decriminalise an act.

The Wolfendem Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in 1957 restated that: "It is not ... the function of the law to intervene into the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour ... ."

However, the United Kingdom Privy Council denied an appeal by homosexual men who asserted that they had the right to engage in sadomasochist sexual behaviour involving the inflicting of pain. Their argument was based, inter alia, on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence".

But in his ruling in the case (R. v Brown) Lord Templeman pointed out that:

"Society is entitled and bound to protect itself from the cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing." The court found the appellants guilty of acts occasioning bodily harm, although the victim had consented to the acts inflicted on him. The import of the ruling is that the law does have a reach into the bedroom if acts deemed criminal - even if consensual - are being committed. And in this case, bodily harm and pain were being inflicted.

So as our legislators and the society consider reviewing the buggery law, we must determine whether the act of anal sex is injurious to a person and, therefore, should be criminalised or decriminalised.

The weakness of the consent-and-privacy argument is illustrated by the following scenario. While it is legal for a man to have consensual sex with his neighbour's sister, mother and daughter in the privacy of his home, it would be illegal for him to do the same with HIS mother, sister and daughter. Even if they consented, he would be guilty of the crime of incest.

Moral foundation

Why are these behaviours - incest, buggery, sadomasochist sex - considered crimes? Why does the law have to regulate these actions? One view is that laws usually rest on a moral foundation that is shared and agreed to by the society. As Lord Devlin, in his essay on 'Enforcement and Morality', has pointed out, there is a public morality that is critical to keeping society together; and that society may use the criminal law to preserve morality that is considered essential to the society's existence. For example, some persons fear that relaxing the buggery law will promote homosexuality, which they consider inimical to family life and procreation.

Society, Lord Devlin, argued, is "held together by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed, the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price."

So the Jamaican society, I contend, must decide what's the price or trade-off in relaxing or retaining the buggery law.

According to Devlin, society has a prima facie right to legislate against immorality and society may use the law to preserve morality in the same way as it uses it to "safeguard anything else that is essential to its existence".

Some people argue that since the crime of buggery is not being prosecuted in the main, what purpose does the law serve? Why not repeal it along with the anti-marijuana law, especially in the case of the latter where there is constant violation?

It should be noted that even though a law might be frequently violated, it serves the purpose of establishing a standard of behaviour. For example, road traffic laws, despite frequent violation, are still enforced so as to restrain breaches and promote behaviour the society has agreed on.

In addition, the traffic laws remain despite frequent flouting by motorists because they and other laws prescribe behavioural standards as societal ideals.

Devlin argues that there can be no theoretical limits to the power of the state to legislate against what it considers as immorality, as it is believed there is no theoretical limits to the power of the state to legislate against treason and sedition.

"We may argue," notes Devlin, "that if a man's sins affect only himself, it cannot be the concern of society. If he chooses to get drunk every night in the privacy of his own home, is any one except himself the worse for it? But if half of the population gets drunk every night, what sort of society would it be? You cannot set a theoretical limit for drunkenness before society is entitled to legislate against the practice."

Adds Devlin: "Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral. Any immorality is capable of affecting society injuriously and, in effect, to a greater or lesser extent it usually does; this is what gives the law its locus standi. It cannot be shut out. But ... the individual has a locus standi too; he cannot be expected to surrender to the judgement of society the whole conduct of his life."

The debate over the repeal/retention of the law against buggery raises the old and familiar question of striking a balance between the rights and interests of society and those of the individual. The rights of each must be restricted to ensure, as far as possible, that the essential needs of each are protected. While the development of criminal law mainly subjugates the rights of the individual to the interests of society, going forward the guiding principle should be the toleration of the maximum individual freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society.

Byron Buckley is an associate editor at The Gleaner. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com andbyron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.

Rev Clinton Chisholm on "Consensual Sex Revisited"

Another entry from Reverend, Blogger, Talk show host and columnist Clinton Chisholm touches on homosexual sex and the public discourse surrounding consent. Although aged it was brought to my attention on the strength of an editorial in the Gleaner earlier this year when the debate had commenced in a sense on gay issues. It was also published as a letter in the same paper. The Editorial was entitled: "

End Discrimination Towards Gays Now

(Excerpt)

Entrenched homophobia

We understand why the various commissions, committees and legislators who drafted the charter failed to expressly declare people's rights to freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It has do with the receding, but still-entrenched homophobia in Jamaica that caused Mr Golding to declare, more than three years ago, that gays would not be welcome in his Cabinet. Politicians fear that any perception that they embrace or are soft on homosexuality will cost them votes and open them to discrimination and stigma.

The attitude, we insist, is cowardly, retrogressive, socially dangerous and offensive to human rights.

Serious concerns for all

To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business. There are, however, a couple of things that concern us and which we believe should be the concern of all Jamaicans.

First, while we note and commend the advances in individuals' rights contained in the charter, we are aware that the possibility of discrimination against any group is a toehold for the erosion of the rights of others, notwithstanding the cover of constitutional protection.

Moreover, the fear of stigma, discrimination and violence pushes many people into the closet. Their talents are often underutilised, to the detriment of the society and economy. There is evidence, too, of the health problems faced by gays, many of whom prefer to live without treatment for their illnesses, including HIV/AIDS, for fear of discrimination. The public-health risks are obvious.

It is nearly 50 years since the promulgation of the Constitution; waiting a few more months to get a better charter won't hurt.

Improving the charter will require that it lie in the legislature for months in accordance with the time stipulation for amending the Constitution. In the meantime, legislators should expunge the buggery law, the main bit of existing legislation that makes homosexuality illegal.

Here is the response from Reverend Chisolm let us juxtapose it to the recent comments, concerns and rhetoric by other religious leaders or fanatics however you want to label them, see the post immediately following this one that has several of those responses or 

Anti Sodomy Decriminalization/Repulsion action intensifies from the Christian Community

Consensual Sex Revisited

“To be clear, our position is neither an endorsement nor rejection of homosexuality. Frankly, we do not care. How consenting adults choose to live their lives is none of our business.” (Jamaica Gleaner editorial, April 1, 2011)

To some the above sentiment of the editorial is progressive, politically correct and defensible. To me it is dangerous and disingenuous. I say the editorial’s posture is disingenuous because it seems to reflect a neutral position about homosexuality but this veneer of neutrality is blown to pieces by the realization that the position of the editorial is not neutrality but indictable moral ambivalence/indifference about homosexuality summed up in the words “…we do not care.” How can a responsible and prestigious media organization (which influences public opinion) claim it is none of its business “how consenting adults choose to live their lives…”?

The editorial’s posture is societally dangerous in that how people live their lives sexually is critical to the society’s health concerns and even continued existence. Mathew Staver is correct when he says “It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies: only societies that reproduce survive.” (Same-Sex Marriage, 2004, p.8) Ponder the societal consequence of universalizing homosexuality as the sexual norm!

Can one be really socially responsible but ambivalent about consensual homosexual sex, consensual adultery, consensual incest, consensual sadomasochistic sex given the relational implications of such acts beyond even the health costs of dealing with AIDS and other STIs? Has the editor given thought to the social cost of pregnancies deemed ‘unwanted’ by putative parents and especially the impact of absentee father figures on the lives of our young men?

Let us get it clear in our minds, consensuality even along with privacy and age-maturity does not constitute adequate moral justification for sexual behavior, without more, as the lawyers would say. If we hold the view that a certain sexual behavior is morally defensible let’s have the moral courage to be upfront and say so and not hide behind a thin veneer of neutrality. Homosexuality may indeed need to be decriminalized and the buggery law expunged but the reasons for doing so must be more convincing than simply moral ambivalence or apathy about what consenting adults do sexually.

Remove Antiquated,Homophobic Law (Gleaner Editorial)...................

We believe that Prime Minister Andrew Holness missed the point or deliberately obfuscated the issue.

There is not, at this time, any campaign in Jamaica for same-sex marriages or unions and for the law to be amended to accommodate these.

What reasonable people, including this newspaper, have insisted upon isgovernment leadership against the prejudice and discrimination against gays, including the repeal of the most repressive symbol of such bigotry, the law against buggery.

This issue was recently reprised by the warning by Britain's prime minister, Mr David Cameron, that his government might cut off budgetary aid to countries that do not uphold human rights, including the oppression of gays and lesbians.

"Britain is one of the premier givers in the world," Cameron said in an interview in the margins of the recent Commonwealth summit in Australia. "We want to see countries that receive our aid adhering to proper human rights."

Should Mr Cameron hold his ground that British aid "should have more strings attached", Jamaica could be one of those countries affected. Britain is a substantial provider of development assistance to this country, especially in the area of security.

Although he did not muster the muscular not-in-my-Cabinet anti-gay remark of his predecessor, Mr Bruce Golding, Mr Holness catered no less to Jamaica's well-filled homophobic gallery, drawing in, for good measure, the matter of sovereignty. The gay-rights issue, he argued, was a matter that the Jamaican democracy was working through.

"We pay attention, as we are global citizens, to what people have said, including what our own people are saying," Mr Holness told this newspaper. "It is a conversation that is evolving."

We make two points on this score: gays, lesbians and all-sexuals, like heterosexual Jamaicans, are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and privileges of their citizenship; and a test of a democracy is how keenly and effectively it advances and protects the rights and freedoms of the minority. With regard to homosexuals, Jamaica cannot claim to have done a good job.

PRIVATE ACTIONS, PUBLIC EFFECT

Our prime minister also made the point that "people's private actions have public effect", the relevance of which, in the context of this debate, we are not clear. It can't be that he believes that gay couples would engage in intercourse in a public square. Nor would such behaviour be expected of heterosexual couples, which, in any event, makes them liable for charges under the public decency laws.

What we advocate is to end this notion of the State as a legal voyeur monitoring the behaviour of consenting adults in their private spaces, which is a basic and logical starting point for a repeal of the buggery act and a larger move towards eliminating the discrimination and persecution of gays.

By maintaining antiquated laws that reinforce bigotry towards gays, Jamaica works against its economic interest, as can be attested to by the many blacklisted dancehall artistes whose music promotes homophobic hate. They likely represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of lost economic activity from a demographic which has significant disposable income, but which feels unwelcome to spend it here.

Mr Holness is new at the job and may be risk averse. But leadership is often just that - leading from the front.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email them: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
ENDS


Meanwhile 

our so called advocates are or were going in the opposite direction via:
1) JFLAG Welcomes PM Stance On Anti-Buggery Law

published by the Gleaner as well

The lobby group, Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) has welcomed comments by Prime Minister Andrew Holness for continued discussion on Jamaica’s anti-buggery legislation. Speaking with The Gleaner/ Power 106 News Centre this afternoon, J-FLAG’s executive director, Dane Lewis says Jamaicans will need to decide for themselves how to treat with the issue. Mr Lewis says his organization recognizes that a repeal of the buggery laws will not result in an immediate show of tolerance for the homosexual and transgender community. However, he says it is a beginning towards curbing discrimination.


and


AIDSFREEWORLD consultant and lawyer Maurice Tomlinson in a sense welcoming the PM’s stance ….. Liberate Gays


Are they missing something that the rest of us clearly see?


check out: 


Prime Minister Andrew Holness on the UK AID Withdrawal threat on Profile


also audio 

On The UK Aid Removal and Holness's Reponse ........ 06.11.11 by glbtqja6

Peace and tolerance


H