FAMPlan head says rape should redefined to cover forced sex acts against males

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Stepped up call for decriminalistion of CSW

by JASL

Sex workers in Jamaica are two times more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than an individual in any other profession. According to statistics produced by the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVCC), the sale of sex is similar to gender-based violence and is an increasing health issue. Decriminalising sex work may well decrease the prevalence of these issues in Jamaica.

What the law says

At present, the Towns and Communities Act 1997, the Sexual Offences Act 2009, and the Offences Against the Person Act 2010 form the fabric of the existing legislative framework that criminalises sex work. Specifically, Section 3(r) of the Towns and Communities Act states that you can be fined on the grounds of engaging in sexual solicitation. Section 4 of the same Act makes provisions for the police to take anyone into custody, without a warrant, who is found to be engaging in sex work in the view of the officer, or any other credible person.

Further, Section 18 (b) of the Sexual Offences Act renders it illegal to “procure or attempt to procure any other person…to become, either within or outside Jamaica, a male or female prostitute”.

And Section 23 (2) grants authorities permission to search places suspected to be brothels and arrest people suspected of sex work.

How it affects sex workers

Failure to decriminalise and regulate the sex work industry has led to the creation of a culture where sex workers constantly fear prosecution from the authorities. At the same time, their biggest threat is posed from the gatekeepers within the industry itself.

Gatekeepers, according to the World Health Organization, refer to the consumers of sex work services, the intimate partners of sex workers and the owners and operators of brothels and entertainment establishments. These gatekeepers hold the balance of the power in the sex work industry, leaving the sex worker in the precarious position of being unable to dictate the terms of their own services. They are oftentimes unable to refuse to provide sexual services to a potential client who seems violent or suspicious, and/or are unable to dictate other terms such as mandatory use of condoms and lubricants and other details that could ensure their health and safety.

According to the CVCC, there is a distinct link between the gender-based violence inflicted on sex workers and the contraction of HIV/AIDS. They report that “direct transmission of HIV can occur through sexual violence, in which forced or coercive sexual intercourse heightens the biological risk factors for transmission, in accordance with degrees of trauma, vaginal tearing, and abrasions”.

Despite being frequently violently victimised, and being at elevated levels of risk for contracting HIV/AIDS, sex workers tend not to report instances of violence encountered or get treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. They are not protected by law. As such, the cycle continues, leaving men and women stigmatised, broken, abused, infected, and untreated.

Moving forward

The clear answer to eliminating the high levels of violence associated with sex work and achieving reduced incidence of HIV/AIDS rate amongst sex workers lies in the decriminalisation and regulation of sex work. Decriminalisation will enable sex workers to create safer work environments, thereby reducing their risk factors.

Sex workers are entitled to a reasonable quality of living just like anyone else. Decriminalisation of their profession will lessen stigmatisation and their fear of authority figures, allowing them to report instances of violence against them and open the capabilities for them to receive quality health care, including HIV/AIDS testing and treatment.

In the upcoming weeks you will hear from the sex workers themselves, who will take you deeper than you have ever gone before into the illicit world of sex work. Bit by bit we will uncover the many layers of secrecy, fear and danger with the ultimate aim of standing united in the journey to creating a healthier, safer Jamaica for all its people.

Review of Sexual Offences Act ..................

The Joint Select Committee (JSC), which has been completing the review of the Sexual Offences Acts, will resume meeting on Tuesday morning at Gordon House.

The new JSC was established in December 2016 by the Government, with current chairman being Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck, replacing his predecessor Senator Mark Golding.

It has met twice, including in February when Police Superintendent Enid Ross-Stewart, head of the Centre for Investigation of Sexual Offences and Child Abuse (CISOCA), landed a shocker when she informed the committee that clergymen and policemen were the most consistent "high-profile" people being arrested for having sex with girls under the age of 16.

Superintendent Ross-Stewart’s declaration, coming on the heels of the media exposure of two leaders of the Moravian Church community, former President Dr Paul Gardner and his former deputy, Jermaine Gibson, being arrested on charges of carnal abuse and indecent assault in January, was a major news issue then.

Ross Stewart added that CISOCA’s arrest of a number of ministers of religion recently on similar charges was nothing new.

However, while the previous committee headed by Senator Golding did quite a bit of work on the review, it was haunted by the fact that the local gay committee, buoyed by a promise from former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller prior to the 2011 General Election, that she would address their claims of discriminatory anti-buggery legislation, were making some noise about the buggery legislation.

One gay activist, lawyer Maurice Tomlinson, actually accused Simpson Miller of a "blatant betrayal" for refusing to abolish Jamaica’s buggery legislation. But, a church group, the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS), led by Dr Wayne West, strongly opposed any reform of buggery legislation in the process.

Senator Golding said he would not be surprised if the contending parties used the opportunity provided by the review to make their cases for and against repealing the buggery legislation. But he made it clear that this should not be seen as the aim of the exercise. At that time, then Opposition Leader Andrew Holness suggested a referendum to decide the issue, contending that a conscience vote in Parliament would not be effective.

New chairman Delroy Chuck insists that he is open to a discussion on all the issues surrounding the Acts involved and the role of the committee, which is to consider and rev existing legislation which purport to, among other things, protect women, children, the disabled and the elderly from violence and abuse, including the Sexual Offences Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, the Domestic Violence Act and the Child Care and Protection Act.

The committee will eventually make recommendations for legislative amendment, not restricted to the stated legislation under review, for the better administration of justice and the effective protection of these special groups, as it deems necessary.

The committee comprises: Chuck (Chairman); Senator Golding; Minister of Culture, Gender Affairs, Entertainment and Sport Olivia "Babsy" Grange; Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Senator, Kamina Johnson Smith; minister of state (education, youth and information, Floyd Green; Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert (Trelawny Southern); Lisa Hanna (St Ann South Eastern); Dr Lynvale Bloomfield (Portland Eastern); Denise Daley (St Catherine Eastern); Senator Ransford Braham; Senator Saphire Longmore; and Senator Sophia Frazer-Binns.

*** The two Bills completing the Property Tax implementation process — the Property Tax (Amendment) (No 2) 2007, and the Property tax (Validation and Indemnity Act — were approved in the Senate Friday, after a lengthy debate which sounded more like the State of the Nation.

Opposition Senators took the position that the increases were unnecessary, as they claimed they resulted from the $1.5-million tax threshold benefit introduced by the Government on April 1 to fulfil its election campaign promise. They also claimed that the increase to $1.5 million of the income tax threshold (moving from just below $600 million) did not benefit the workers, who would be paying more taxes in other areas due to inflation, and that the reduced rates announced last week were still too high.

The Government responded that the tax package introduced in the 2017/18 Budget Debate had already covered the $13.5-million gap created by the increased threshold and did not provide any additional tax revenue, as it was revenue neutral, as confirmed by the International Monetary Fund. They also pointed out that the tax revenues from property tax were specifically meant fo road maintenance, streetlights and garbage collection by the parish municipal corporations and could not be lodged into the Consolidated Fund.

The Government also noted that the significant increases in property tax experienced this time was due to the former Government’s failure to evaluate and implement property values on time, including implementing the re-evaulation which was done in 2013.

But what was most interesting about the exchange was Government Senator Lambert Brown’s explanation of why the new rates were not implemented in 2013.

According to him:

"The reality is that we applied wisdom. We chose not to pressure the people. But you now come in and decide, as I said earlier, that the people must pay more taxes, as if that is a good thing. I don’t share it, that taxing the people is a good thing, especially when those taxes can be avoided," Brown said.

Government members reminded Senator Brown that they could not be avoided because they are a legal requirement every five years, and the money collected goes from the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development to the Parish Councils/Municipal Corporations to pay for their responsibilities and not into the Consolidated Fund.

This week’s Gordon House schedule:

• Tuesday, April 25, 2:00 pm — Siitting of the House of Representatives (Sectoral Debate);

• Wednesday, April 26, 10:00 am — Public Administration & Appropriations Committee;

2:00 pm — Sitting of the House of Representatives (Sectoral Debate)

• Friday, April 28, 9:00 am — Sitting of the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

Espeut claims among other things that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Espeut among other things said:

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

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

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

He continued:

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

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

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

SMH

More anon

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical gay sex convictions in New Zealand to be wiped

As we in Jamaica continue to quibble after decades about the definition of rape and whether or not to decriminalize buggery and such other jurisdictions are getting the job done in terms of fixing the breach to gay men over so many years in error.

It was just some days ago that the folks in the United Kingdom also pardoned men with buggery running into the thousands who will benefit from such an action.

Yet we want to hold on to a 486 year old legislation simply because politicians are afraid to do the sensible thing.

New Zealand has said it will move to quash historical convictions for consensual sex between men.

Amy Adams

Justice Minister Amy Adams said an application process will be introduced and cases will be judged individually.

In 1986 when the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed, sex between men above 16 years old was decriminalised.

But convictions for consensual sex between men prior to that still appear in criminal history checks and may have to be disclosed in job applications.

Ms Adams said the government intends to introduce legislation to implement the scheme in the coming months. About 1,000 people could be eligible to apply, according to New Zealand media reports.
'Stigma and prejudice'

A petition was introduced to parliament last July, asking for a process to reverse those convictions brought before 1986 and for an apology from the government.

On Thursday, Ms Adams apologised while addressing reporters.

"Although we can never fully undo the impact on the lives of those affected, this new scheme will provide a pathway for their convictions to be expunged," Ms Adams said.

"It means people will be treated as if they had never been convicted, and removes the ongoing stigma and prejudice that can arise from convictions for homosexual offences."

Only convictions between consenting adult men will be quashed, Ms Adams said, not those where the acts are still illegal today.

Britain announced it would pardon thousands of men convicted of offences that once criminalised homosexuality last year and a 2012 bill allowed those with historical convictions for consensual gay sex to apply to have them disregarded.

meanwhile locally here is some of the nonsense we have to contend with for example some of the comments on just the mere suggestion by the UN that rape should be redefined to reflect anal sex than just mere vaginal penetration:

Observer poll results February 2017

It is a little heart rending to watch countries that once criminalised buggery or anal sex with consent now rightsizing their legislation and going further to quash convictions that qualify while we fiddle with buggery. As a gay man who has been burnt by this buggery act I know all too well the sensitivities involved.

I am happy for the men who will benefit from this quashing in New Zealand.

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

Thousands of gay men in the UK pardoned for past convictions of gross indecency

J-FLAG call to broaden definition of sexual intercourse

Defintition of sex business back on the agenda again

Redefining rape, nonconsent with anal sex & such

There is fresh debate in the media about a recommendation by the United Nations to widen the definition of rape to include anal penetration and placing the penis in the mouth of a victim. The question is whether or not this proposed widening of the definition of rape is necessary.

Rape is generally described, at common law, in most jurisdictions as sexual intercourse by a man with a woman without her consent. The law is that even the slightest penetration will suffice and there is no need for the emission of semen.

Consistent with this universal definition of rape, Section 3 of The Sexual Offences Act, 2009 provides that a man commits the offence of rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent and knowing that she doesn't consent to sexual intercourse or recklessly not caring whether she consents.

If the recent newspaper articles are correct, the United Nations is recommending an expansion of the definition of rape to include the penetration of the anus and placing the penis in the mouth of a victim.

Under the Act, the word 'rape' is not used in Section 4, but what is known under the Act as grievous sexual assault is committed upon another person where, in the circumstances specified in Section 3 of the act, the offender penetrates the anus or vagina of the victim with a body part other than the penis or an object manipulated by the offender or another person. The offender also commits grievous sexual assault if he places his penis in the mouth of a victim or causes another person to place his penis in the mouth of the victim.

According to the act, a person who is convicted of rape is liable on conviction in a circuit court to imprisonment for life, while a person who is convicted of grievous sexual assault is liable on summary conviction in the parish court for a term not exceeding three years, and on conviction in the circuit court, to imprisonment for life or other penalties in the discretion of the judge, but not less than 15 years.

With respect to anal penetration, Section 76 of the Offences Against the Person Act provides that whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery shall be liable to imprison for a term not exceeding 10 years. 

BUGGERY

What is clear is that there is sufficient provision in law to punish any offender who places his penis in the mouth of a victim or causes a penis to be placed in the mouth of a victim or anyone who committed buggery. 

Therefore, if buggery is committed during the same time with rape and also by placing the penis in a victim's mouth, the prosecution can have these offences tried and disposed of without any prejudice to the offender.

Men have a harder time reporting supposed rape to cops as they may inadvertently implicate themselves for a buggery charge or at least grievous sexual assault; if anal penetration is mentioned to the intake officer taking the report. It gets more complicated if it was already entered into the station/precinct's diary.
In light of the above, there seems to be no good reason to expand the definition of rape to include buggery and placing a penis in the victim's mouth in light of the fact that both offences are already adequately punished in law. What is important is to ensure that any breach of the law is suitably punished and that consent or nonconsent is clearly established in the matter.

Concerning the matter of hetero-buggery cases where there was one female victim there is an infamous case of the dancehall DJ Zebra who in 2010 got himself in trouble, at the time it was posted that in November 2011 - After completing a sentence for rape in 2008, deejay Zebra was yesterday again locked away for 30 years' hard labour for another sex-related crime.

The deejay, whose real name is Garfield Vassell, was sentenced by Justice Evan Brown in the St Catherine Circuit Court.

Justice Brown outlined that for buggery, Vassell should serve 10 years and 20 years for carnal abuse.

The entertainer, who was represented by attorney-at-law Everton Dewar, was found guilty on Tuesday by a jury which retired for less than an hour. He was found guilty of carnal abuse and buggery.

The Crown led evidence that the entertainer sexually assaulted the teenage daughter of his girlfriend.

It is said that the child had to run away from home and related her ordeal to a senior relative who reported the matter to the police.

The deejay, who is known for songs such as Redder Than Red and Rupert, was held in June of last year after eluding the police for four months. He had been released in 2008 on rape charges, after serving six years behind bars.

Let us keep on this one folks

Peace & tolerance

H

also see:

Elephant Man Freed Of Rape, Buggery Charges

POLL RESULTS: Gov't should ignore UN recommendation to change definition of sexual intercourse

KINGSTON, Jamaica — Sixty-nine per cent of the 752 respondents to a recent OBSERVER ONLINE poll said the government should not yield to the United Nations (UN) recommendation to broaden Jamaica’s definition of sexual course.

The call came last week after UNDP Senior Human Rights Adviser in Jamaica Birgit Gerstenberg told a Parliamentary committee meeting at Gordon House that the UN was recommending other forms, such as penetration of the mouth, anal intercourse or penetration by non-sex organs and objects (except for medical purposes) be considered.

J-FLAG supported the move saying that “the current definition of sexual intercourse, which was crafted in 2009 is “inaccurate”, adding that “it is unfortunate that we have allowed our laws to treat rape of some persons as more severe than rape of others.”

Policy and Advocacy Manager at J-FLAG, Glenroy Murray, argued that the definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ contained in Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act is explicitly gender and orifice specific, explaining that “sexual intercourse is distinct from anal intercourse and consequently the absence of consent for sexual intercourse connotes the offence of rape, whereas the defence of consent is not available for the crime of anal intercourse (buggery). Similarly, the current definition excludes oral copulation from the rubric of ‘sexual intercourse’ and instead considers it a part of a distinct sexual offence which is ‘grievous sexual assault’”.

“Having a definition of rape that is accurate and reflective of the ways in which people are raped is essential to guaranteeing equality before the law as provided for in section 13 (3)(g) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,” Murray argued, adding that this is the only way to equally and adequately protect children, women and men from all forms of sexual violence and abuse.

Meanwhile, the UN’s recommendation has left OBSERVER ONLINE readers in a furore, saying that the organization has a “hidden agenda”.

One OBSERVER ONLINE reader said that the recommendation was “utter rubbish” as “sexual intercourse is only via the way of the vagina and penis” and that” those two body parts are the only way that a child can be conceived.”

The reader further warned the Minister of Justice, Delroy Chuck, and the government to not “fall for this trick by the UN... they have a hidden agenda.”

But amid the uproar, some readers supported the move, with one reader adding that the “article makes good common sense they should go do a redefinition along those lines immediately.”

Another added that, “the law need to change because some of these big men/women are forcing under age boys/girls into doing oral sex. Especially the rapist men dem.”

“I agree” said another reader, “our definition needs to be broadened so that many more people can be convicted for sexual immorality.”

Justice Minister Delroy Chuck has since instructed a law reform team to work on a "perfect definition" of rape that will satisfy the UN and also the Jamaican public.

Outdated laws only prohibit buggery of creatures says animal rights activist

As the sexual offences bill submissions continue the Star News brought this to our attention today.

Activist says ...

Pamela Lawson, managing director of the JSPCA, holds a young pit bull terrier brought in to get its first shots.

ORAL SEX WITH ANIMALS SHOULD BE BANNED

• Outdated laws only prohibit buggery of creatures

Jamaican animal rights activist, Pamela Lawson, is crying shame on what she calls Jamaica's old-fashioned laws which allow for people to have sexual relations with animals as long as the animal is not penetrated or harmed.

The issue came to the fore when a man was hauled before the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple charges of sexual offences against his stepdaughters and one count of bestiality. However, the bestiality charge was thrown out because he did not penetrate the animal.

The court documents, which identified the man as D.L.W., stated that he tried to induce sexual intercourse between one of his stepdaughters and the family's dog. When that didn't work, he spread peanut butter on her vagina and took photographs while the dog licked it off. He later asked her to do it again so he could make a video.

Despite the man's actions, Justice Thomas Cromwell ruled that the man was not guilty of inciting bestiality, because according to Canada's law, bestiality only occurs where there is penetration.

The laws are similar in Jamaica, and under section 76 of the Offences Against the Person Act, persons can be imprisoned for buggery of a person or animal.

legally engage

However, the issue of sexual abuse of animals is not addressed elsewhere in Jamaica's laws, technically allowing for Jamaicans to legally engage in various types of sexual relations with animals, once the animals are not harmed or penetrated.

Director of the Jamaica Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Pamela Lawson, told THE STAR that she believes all forms of sexual relations between humans and animals are "offensive and unacceptable." She said the laws need to be amended to address loopholes which allow such acts.

"I don't think it should only be an animal right activist who should be upset by the ruling. I think these actions are generally resented by society because it is just not right," Lawson said, adding that the police should be notified when these things happen.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman supported Lawson's view, stressing that the laws as it relates to the sexual abuse of animals should be amended to reflect current happenings.

"As it is now, you have to prove penetration for a bestiality charge. The law has to keep in touch with modern trends that did not exist when the laws were created," Wildman said.

J-FLAG call to broaden definition of sexual intercourse

KINGSTON, Jamaica — The Jamaica Forum of Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) has thrown its support behind the call by the United Nations (UN) recommending that Jamaica's definition of sexual intercourse be extended beyond "penetration of the vagina by the penis of another person".

UNDP Senior Human Rights Adviser in Jamaica, Birgit Gerstenberg, told a Parliamentary committee meeting at Gordon House yesterday afternoon that the UN was recommending that other forms of penetration be considered such as penetration of the mouth, anal intercourse or penetration by non-sex organs and objects (except for medical purposes).

Policy and Advocacy Manager at J-FLAG, Glenroy Murray, in supporting the proposal told OBSERVER ONLINE that the current definition of sexual intercourse which was crafted in 2009 is “inaccurate”, adding that “it is unfortunate that we have allowed our laws to treat rape of some persons as more severe than rape of others.”

“Having a definition of rape that is accurate and reflective of the ways in which people are raped is essential to guaranteeing equality before the law as provided for in section 13 (3)(g) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,” Murray argued, adding that this is the only way to equally and adequately protect children, women and men from all forms of sexual violence and abuse.

He argued that the definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ contained in Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act is explicitly gender and orifice specific, explaining that “sexual intercourse is distinct from anal intercourse and consequently the absence of consent for sexual intercourse connotes the offence of rape, whereas the defence of consent is not available for the crime of anal intercourse (buggery). Similarly, the current definition excludes oral copulation from the rubric of ‘sexual intercourse’ and instead considers it a part of a distinct sexual offence which is ‘grievous sexual assault’”.

He further stated that the revised definition of sexual intercourse should include penetration of the mouth or anus by a penis and penetration of the vagina, anus and mouth by an object except where the penetration is carried out for proper medical purposes.

“J-FLAG has consistently called for an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act to expand protections by formulating a gender and orifice neutral definition which also includes a provision for the manipulation of an object. This means that where one person has sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent, the act would constitute the crime of rape, with no distinction based on gender or orifice, and the appropriate penalties can apply”, he ended.

Meanwhile, the UN’s recommendation has left OBSERVER ONLINE readers in a furore, saying that the organization has a “hidden agenda”.

One OBSERVER ONLINE reader said that the recommendation was “utter rubbish” as “sexual intercourse is only via the way of the vagina and penis” and that” those two body parts are the only way that a child can be conceived.”

The reader further warned the Minister of Justice, Delroy Chuck, and the government to not “fall for this trick by the UN... they have a hidden agenda.”

Another reader, in supporting claims made by the aforementioned reader, said “I back you up here. My exact thought is that they have a hidden agenda. The same way gay male celebrities start wearing pink shirts as silent way of protesting gay rights and some silly people start wearing it talking about ‘a star wear pink’ not knowing the real reasons behind it. Wise up people all these small things are ways to force their dirty life, ungodly lifestyle on our beloved Jamaica.”

Another said, “Watch and see where this is going!! I smell a rat!”

“The lobby mafia is at work again. Another clandestine manoeuvre to change definitions to suit their agenda. Why else would a country's definition of an offence be of such concern? First, they sneak inappropriate materials into text books and handouts, then fund court challenges to change laws. Now using UN bodies as proxy. We can see through your smokescreen,” said another reader.

“Jamaica, hold your ground. The UN is made up of body of people with different sexual preference,” said another.

But amid the uproar, some readers supported the move, with one reader adding that the “article makes good common sense they should go do a redefinition along those lines immediately.”

Another added that, “the law need to change because some of these big men/women are forcing under age boys/girls into doing oral sex. Especially the rapist men dem.”

“I agree” said another reader, “our definition needs to be broadened so that many more people can be convicted for sexual immorality.”

Thousands of gay men in the UK pardoned for past convictions of gross indecency & buggery

So our friends in the UK have once again done the right thing after the decriminalization of buggery by parliament when acts linked homosexuality under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, I am happy for them but one wonders when we will have such sensible actions here in Jamaica. An Act to amend the law of England and Wales relating to homosexual acts. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom (citation 1967 c. 60) decriminalized homosexual acts in private between two men, both of whom had to have attained the age of 21. Years later the ages of consent were consolidated to 16 after several protests and advocacy from folks such as Peter Tatchell. 

The man who wrote the nonsensical legislation some 486 years ago which still haunts us as Commonwealth countries who still hang on to it for dear life after numerous amendments, pursuant to the protestant reformation, also see: The Buggery Act in the early years (England under Henry VIII)

Sir John Wolfendale whose 1957 report in the UK said the law should not be in consenting male's bedrooms

meanwhile in this development the BBC reported:

Thousands of gay and bisexual men found guilty of decades-old sexual offences in England and Wales have been posthumously pardoned.

The enactment by the government of the so-called Alan Turing law means about 49,000 men will be cleared of crimes of which they would be innocent today.

Wartime code-breaker Turing was pardoned in 2013 for gross indecency.

Statutory pardons will also be granted to people still living who apply to have their convictions removed.

The pardons were first announced last year and have now been officially rubber-stamped after the Policing and Crime Bill received Royal Assent.

The men were found guilty of committing now-abolished offences while in consensual relationships.

Justice minister Sam Gyimah said it was a "truly momentous day".

He said: "We can never undo the hurt caused, but we have apologised and taken action to right these wrongs."

Mathematician Turing was given a royal pardon in 2013, nearly 60 years after his suicide in 1954.

'Important milestone'

The pardon addressed his 1952 conviction for gross indecency, after which he was chemically castrated.

This followed an official apology by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2009 for how Alan Turing had been treated.

His relatives later mounted a high-profile campaign to secure pardons for other men similarly convicted under historical indecency laws.

Laws against homosexual activity before 1967

Gross indecency with another man: introduced in 1885 and used to prosecute men where sodomy could not be proven

Buggery: first used as an offence in 1533 and remained a capital punishment crime until the 19th Century

(Source: Sexual Offence Act 1956, England and Wales)

Gay rights charity Stonewall said: "Another important milestone of equality has been secured in law.

"The more equality is enshrined into our law books, the stronger our equality becomes, and the stronger we as a community become."

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Sharkey, whose amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill was instrumental in securing the change, said it was a "wonderful thing" that Mr Turing's pardon could be extended to other men "unjustly convicted".

'Grave injustices'

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Although it comes too late for those convicted, the friends and relatives of the thousands of people who suffered under this unfair and discriminatory law will now have a weight lifted off their shoulders."

Rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the pardon was an "important, valuable advance that will remedy the grave injustices suffered by many of the estimated 50,000 to 100,000 men who were convicted under discriminatory anti-gay laws".

But he said it was "unclear" whether only the relatives of a deceased man could apply for a pardon on their behalf.

"Many convicted men were rejected and disowned by their families," he said.

"The government should make it clear that any concerned person, including personal friends, can apply for a pardon for a deceased person."

ENDS

also hear an old podcast I had done on the issue:

I hope some of us learn that it is time to move away from the holding on to a law that has no bearing in today's world. The timing of this development could not have been more opportune as the submissions for the the Sexual Offences Bill locally are opened presently as a previous post indicates.

Peace & tolerance

H

Parliament resumes review of sexual violence bills

A parliamentary joint select committee (JSC) had a timely resumption Wednesday of its review of four current pieces of domestic violence legislation, including the Sexual Offences Act.

The new committee, which has replaced one which last sat in 2014, is chaired by Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck, replacing former minister Mark Golding.

The committee has been assigned to review the Sexual Offences Act, and consider and review three other pieces of legislation — the Offences Against the Person Act, which includes provisions relating to acts of buggery; the Domestic Violence Act; and the Childcare and Protection Act.

When the previous committee last sat, on November 26, 2014, under the chairmanship of Senator Golding, it was discussed a presentation from the Office of the Children’s Advocate (OCA). At that meeting, the committee had extensive discussions on whether the age of consent should be adjusted from 16 years old to 18 years old.

The committee was contending with information, which Golding ascribed to a senior public health officer, that over 80 per cent of Jamaicans had sex by the time they were 18 years old.

Golding said then that with that kind of statistic in mind, the idea of increasing the age of consent to 18 pointed to an issue of whether the system would not be potentially criminalising “a vast majority of young persons”.

At Wednesday’s meeting of the new committee appointed on December 6, 2016, Chuck said they would focus on how they would proceed, especially in light of the fact that the 2017/18 budget would be tabled about February 9.

However, he noted that it was “absolutely clear” that the four acts to be reviewed by the committee are in “great need of revision”.

“Certainly events of the past indicate to us that we have to ensure that our women and children, in particular, are protected,” Chuck stated.

“To the extent that legislation can improve the care and protection of our women and children, then we must do what we can to improve or change the legislation, as the case may be,” he added.

Minister of Culture, Gender Affairs, Entertainment and Sport Olivia “Babsy” Grange, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Senator Kamina Johnson Smith, whose Senate motion in 2013 on violence against women and children encouraged the Parliament to widen the scope of the JSC to include the three additional Acts, and Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information Floyd Green joined Senator Golding and other members of the committee in welcoming the resumption of the work of the committee.

Grange said that the committee had a great responsibility, especially in light of recent acts of violence against women and children in the society. She suggested that the committee seek to expeditiously address the issues.

The committee agreed to meet again on February 1 and 8 to continue its work, after spending the next two weeks sifting through submissions and/or resubmissions from the 29 individuals and institutions involved in the initial deliberations.

Other members of the committee attending Wednesday’s meeting were: Senators Saphire Longmore and Sophia Fraser-Binns, and MPs Marisa Dalrymple Philibert and Lynvale Bloomfield.

Slippery slope deception & conflation of incest with buggery’s decriminalization

Slippery slope deception & conflation of incest with buggery’s decriminalization

The recent ruling in Belize by the Supreme Court on the striking down adults same gender sex and opposite gender sex as well seems to have sent some persons into frenzy on the issue as the fear mongering is on in earnest. The believes and misnomers that gay marriage is next when marriage between a man and a woman as defined in the charter of rights is as clear as crystal; such a meaning is so deeply entrenched that it would take forever almost to have removed providing some good well thinking members of parliament decide to take it on. Presently no parliamentarians wants to come close to addressing the present thrust for amending the articles 76, 77 & 79 concerning buggery or the abominable crime under the Sexual Offences Bills.

The latest slippery slope that some persons egregiously use to include religious fanatics while giving the church on a whole a bad name and image is that if consenting adults are allowed to engage in private in anal penetration then what is to stop incestuous relations to occur so long there is consent, some have gone even further such as attorneys Bert Samuels and Shirley Richards of Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship fame that persons may even advocate to be married to animals despite the fact the said ‘buggery law’ also speaks to beastiality, when no such calls have been made to amend that section. According to them as has happened in Europe whilst not able to provide any proof simply make absolutes pronouncements albeit they are attorneys and ought to know better. It is not surprising as other colleagues such as Dr Wayne West on his feverish campaign on seeing HIV is a gay disease ploy has also deceptively (in the name of piety) claimed all other anal acts will be free and open for use for said consenting adults. He has grouped for example scatting, fisting and felching in his public advocacy and also in church presentations over and over again. Obviously it is exaggeration for effect, magnify the problem so that it sounds convincing. Now that the doors are closing the aforementioned referendum on buggery by then opposition leader now prime minister is now the obvious target by antigay voices in a bid to play on the national sentiments if not ignorance.

Phillipa Davies a colleague of West also tried it recently on transgenderism and maybe thought it would have gone unnoticed on the radio show she hosts, since my exposure of the unsubstantiated comments she made on Dr Alfred ‘s work she has hardly appeared on the show but recently turned up in a almost flopped protest outside the US embassy on the rainbow lighting motif they had done some days before and the rainbow flag support they showed immediately following the Florida shooting incident of a gay nightclub. Miss Davies has been groomed well it seems not to mention Helen Coley Nicholson president of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship who sounds more like someone is pressing her buttons or coaching her on what to say publicly; namely her predecessor Shirley Richards. This is the same woman who some years ago asked that lesbians be also criminalised as gay men in terms of the sexual offences bill although she knows full well (or ought to) as an attorney that that may not be possible as what would the women be so engaged in that would warrant such a call, yet Richards and company are all but silent on other societal atrocities; that was evidenced by a radio interview on BEST 100FM hosted by Rastafarian attorney Miguel Lorne who while haling the aforementioned US Embassy protest mentioned the Mario Deane matter where he effectively said the protests over the two year period saw very little participation of the clergy or churches, he encouraged her to join in on other matters to which Mrs Richards barely gave an affirmative response and quickly went back to the anti gay agenda she was on the radio about.

There seems to be a well orchestrated campaign to target talkshows with this latest strategy to conflate purposely incest with consenting adults sexual activity. Another discussion on LOVE 101FM’s Morning Watch Bert Samuels used the same strategy while claiming gay marriage is next, despite he explained that marriage as defined now is between a man and a woman and is deeply entrenched he claimed if someone wants to marry their dog they can challenge the act while chastising the originators of the ‘buggery law’ of changing morality. He also suggested they were forcing former colonies to accept the ‘new morality’ of which he is greatly opposed. He mentioned the savings law clause briefly in a supposed bid to give the background but persisted that colonies are being pressured or moral imperialism:

“They want to change a law that they imposed on us originally, they gave it to us.” He said among other things.

Even when it is not as if the entire buggery law will go but instead will be very clearly defined as to privacy and consent. Gary Harriot of the Jamaica Umbrella Group of Churches, JUG who also sided with Mr Samuels, the issue of laws and morals came up as well as well as separation of church and state. Samuels also raised the issue of a twenty year old woman who is attracted to her father as an example; he claimed that they are adults and consenting so he asked:

“Where do we draw the line?”

Yet at no point in the near thirty minute discussion no mention was made there and even elsewhere where the matter has been raised incest laws have been brought up. Samuels played on fears that other rights in the charter of rights such as freedom of expression would collide with marriage rights and so on. What is most interesting on all of this is that regarding the savings law clause unlike Belize that amended their ‘buggery law’ some five years after their independence to describe the crime as ‘unnatural acts’ or ‘crime against nature’ Jamaica has left the legislation as we inherited same in 1962. Belize also has a protection of discrimination due to sexual orientation in their constitution but Jamaica does not, if I recall that protection was removed during the charter of rights draft debate in a cleverly orchestrated word meaning linguistic distraction as to the meaning of ‘sex’ as it would have left open a door to something else then.

Incest laws

The attempt to try to marry or suggest a slippery slope for every other conceivable ills and sexual aspersion will come flying through the door if and when the courts rule similarly locally as our UNIBAM success in Belize is simply dishonesty. To think this is being done in the name of God; what misrepresentation. As far as my untrained understanding of incest is concerned even if there is consent with blood relatives engaging in sexual activity the incest legislation which also is included in the sexual offences bill which contain the ‘buggery law’ is clear that it is illegal. To twin such with opposite sex partners is deceptive and clearly shows a kind of desperation by anti gay voices as their cause slowly shrinks before their eyes. Sadly again this is being done in the name of God which makes the hardened positions more tenuous, no wonder why so many LGBT persons claim secularism or aetheism just to strengthen their own hand. Incest is not just about the religious component of it linked to Leviticus but also the biological considerations.

It is well known as common knowledge that the likelihood of a child as a product of an incestuous liaison can lead to birth issues if not a disabled or handicapped offspring as the bloodline is too close causing such outcomes. Probably the only incestuous issue between men is that of cousins or brothers (if so extreme) or Uncle and nephew no children would be the outcome after unprotected sex and ejaculation to create any pregnancy. Even so a buggery charge if provable would stand more so than incest in such a matter. I am not aware of any such case where two adult consenting men have been charged and successfully prosecuted for incest after being charged. Definitely cases involving an older perpetrator and a minor who are related incest are included alongside the other relevant charges so applied.

The 2009 Sexual Offences Act under ‘Incest’ is clear as it states:

Incest

7.--(1) The offence of incest is committed by a male person Incest who willingly has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that the other person is his grandmother, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece or granddaughter.

(2) The offence of incest is committed by a female person who willingly has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that the other person is her grandfather, father, brother, son, uncle, nephew or grandson.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2), the relationship between the person charged with an offence under any of those subsections and the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed includes a relationship determined by the reference to the whole blood or half blood, as the case may be.

(4) A person who commits the offence of incest is liable on conviction in a Circuit Court to imprisonment for life.
Not much change has come to light regarding incest outside of a sex offenders’ registry since despite reviews and amendments over the years.

Touching gay marriage versus civil unions and affording rights to same gender couples Bert Samuels’ resistance was clear:

“Well what is happening is that these groups, these partners want to have the same rights; in other words they want to have the right if their partner is in the hospital and cannot determine, they want to be able to determine whether you turn of life support or they want to be able to inherit property from their partners, that’s another route that has been elsewhere instituted, so that it is a recognition of these unions now being given legal status similar to marriage where people can inherit and pass property from one to the other.

You’re asking my personal view on that, I am old school, I am sorry.”

Reverend Harriot also mentioned the restorative therapy ambit supposedly claiming persons needed to be ‘cared for’ and that of ‘God’s design’ but he did not go down the road of exploring whether said design also include diverse orientation. The misconception of the mention of the word ‘diversity’ as seen by some churches as a bi-word for homosexual activists to invade the church and that it would be resisted strongly or reinterpreted to mean denominations and not a pro-LGBT agenda. Still want more fear mongering well there is the notion of Belize’s supposed destruction post the landmark decision.

We have a good way to go on just sensible discourse from persons who one would have expected better.

Peace & tolerance

H

remember this?: