Do gays have a choice? by Ian Boyne

Originally published November 15, 2009

Ian Boyne

It's nigh impossible to conduct a cold, rational, dispassionate discourse on homosexuality. It's not just the religious fundamentalists who seem hardwired for irrationality and emotionalism. Many homosexuals are also irredeemably intolerant, glandular and visceral, with scant respect for the canons of reason.

They have also taken to manipulating science in their propaganda war, making unsubstantiated claims which they pass off as gospel. They have been very successful as evidenced by the fact that a number of persons have softened their opposition to homosexuality, claiming matter-of-factly that 'homosexuals don't have a choice. They are born that way.' Now let's be clinical about this matter of choice.

I would grant that most homosexuals did not choose their sexuality the way they choose their careers, neighbourhoods and foods. They didn't decide that, "Hey, I think I want to be attracted to someone of my own gender rather than the opposite sex". And how many would do such a suicidal thing in a place like Jamaica?

As a boy, I did not choose to be attracted to girls. I found myself that way. Acknowledging that people don't 'choose' their orientation, however, is not the same as asserting that sexual orientation is purely genetic. (Some people, like most bisexuals, do choose, reflecting what Dr Norman Doidge calls "the plasticity of sexual desire" in his book The Brain That Changes Itself.)

It is now repeated as established scientific fact that people are born either gay or straight. Religious people and others who oppose homosexuality are derided as not just dangerous bigots and haters, but hopelessly ignorant. It's accepted mantra in the United States (US) National and Gay and Lesbian Task Force that gays don't really have a choice and, therefore, those who oppose homosexuality are oppressors, fools or both.

CONTINUE HERE

Charter of Rights debate ends - Legislation to sit for three months before vote

THE HOUSE of Representatives on Tuesday closed the debate on the Charter of Rights, paving the way for a landmark vote on the proposed battery of constitutional amendments.

The bill passed committee stage with five amendments. It will now sit on the table of Parliament for three months before third reading, at which time Parliamentarians will vote on it.

Providing the bill receives two-thirds support in the House, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration and debate.

The Bill must be passed before Parliament is prorogued in March of next year, failing which, the process of amending the Constitution will have to be restarted.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding said the Charter does not represent perfection.

"There are some persons who feel, and some members of the House have reflected that opinion, that it needs to be stronger than we have made it," Golding said.

Additional rights

The prime minister acknow-ledged that there are several areas where people would want additional rights but he told Parliament that practicality should dictate the actions of legislators.

"There is no point in putting rights in that you will not have the capacity to guarantee," Golding said.

The Charter of Rights represents an attempt by Parliament to guarantee inalienable and justiciable rights to citizens. It has been on the political agenda since 1977 and is only now being debated in the House of Representatives.

The Opposition People's National Party (PNP) had threatened to block the Charter unless Government was willing to reconsider its stance on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and a removal of the strictures relating to the Pratt and Morgan ruling.

The PNP had proceeded in the debate under the understanding that the governing JLP would reconsider removing the five-year strictures imposed by the Pratt and Morgan ruling for the carrying out of the death penalty.

CCJ appeal

The Opposition also asked Government to change its position and allow the CCJ to be the country's final court of appeal.

On Tuesday, Golding told Parliament that a committee was established in his party to consider the issues. He has promised to communicate the party's position on the two issues to Leader of the Opposition Portia Simpson Miller before the vote is taken on the Charter next February.

"We are running pretty close on time. We have to close the debate, we have to wait for three months before we vote on the bill and we have to get the bill as passed to the Senate in order that they can have their debate on it and pass it before the House is prorogued in March," Golding said.

Meanwhile no word on any new developments followinr Prime Minister Golding's statement on no to gay marriage, the smoke screen argument that was put forward just before President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Bill in the US, some say perfect timing by the PM to quash any comparisons to the debate in the US on rights for persons related to sexual orientation.

H

(parts from the Gleaner)

Beenieman yanked from NZ show following gay pressure

with Yasmin
Jamaica Observer
Monday, November 16, 2009

Following headlines over the weekend that gay lobby groups in New Zealand were presuring the promoters of music festival, Big Day Out, to pull Beenie Man from the line-up, and subsequent defence of their decision to use him as the only reggae act, the promoters have now backpedalled and have yanked the deejay from the concert.


Beenie Man... yanked from line-up for music festival Big Day Out
Internet reports say that New Zealand MP Kevin Hague was among those objecting to the inclusion of the King of the Dancehall based on his anti-gay lyrics. Hague noted that hate-mongering is not welcome in New Zealand, and reportedly urged the Big Day Out to uninvite Beenie.

"Music is a powerful shaper of culture, values, attitudes and behaviour," said Hague. "Music that denigrates gay men and lesbians in the most extreme way imaginable sends some very powerful signals both to young gay and lesbian people but also to their peers. It is not true that 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'.

"Hate speech like that of Beenie Man gives permission to prejudice and discrimination and creates it where it didn't previously exist. It blights and diminishes the lives of all who are exposed to it, most particularly young lesbian and gay people who suffer violence, harassment, lowered self-esteem and all the consequent health and social problems."

Gay reaction stemmed from a song recorded by the deejay in which he says, "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays."

The promoters had said in a previous release that they were aware of Beenie Man's controversial past, but he had renounced those feelings and was now promoting "peaceful and humanistic values".

However, a release posted yesterday said, "The depth of feeling and hurt amongst these groups has convinced us that for us to proceed with his Big Day Out appearances was, and would continue to be, divisive among our audience members and would mar the enjoyment of the event for many."

Beenie Man, as is the norm, could not be reached for comment.

The sad part about this is that it's not just Beenie who has lost out, it's the music. This is a lost opportunity to promote reggae/dancehall in a major way and would no doubt have been a big boost - financially and otherwise - for Beenie Man himself. The fact is that there must have been big demand for this artiste for the promoters to have included him in a line-up with names such as Lily Allen, Muse, Eskimo Joe, The Mars Volta, Calvin Harris, Lisa Mitchell, the Horrors, and others. Between January 15 and 31, the Big Day Out will be held in Perth, Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and the Gold Coast, and according to the concert's website, many of the venues are already sold out.

Jamaica AIDS Support applauds Obama - US entry ban on HIV-positive persons nears end

Kimesha Walters,

Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL) has welcomed a move by United States President Barack Obama to end a 22-year-old ban on persons who have tested positive for HIV from entering that country.

"We are ecstatic about it," said Stacy-Ann Jarrett, executive director of JASL. "It actually speaks to addressing the issue of universal access to all of our target groups, to persons who are living with AIDS."

She added: "It is the beginning of things to happen in terms of non-discrimination, the inclusion of HIV-positive people."

Obama had promised to end the ban before the end of the year, but said a rule cancelling the ban would be published on Tuesday and take effect early next year.

Once lifted, foreigners applying to become residents in the United States will no longer be required to take a test for AIDS.

Ending the stigma

According to The Associated Press, "Obama said that by lifting the ban, the US will take a step toward ending the stigma against people with HIV/AIDS, something he said has stopped people from getting tested and has helped spread the disease."

Meanwhile, Jarrett noted that there were several benefits awaiting HIV-positive persons who want to travel to the United States. Among those benefits were opportunities to visit family and attend international conferences.

The JASL head noted that conference organisers have, in the past, had to re-route people through other territories, costing more money than if they were able to stop over in the US.

"It's going to cost less to participate in international conferences or meetings and other support group sessions that are made to empower persons who are living with the virus all over the world," Jarrett explained.

Jarrett said people would now have easier access to drugs and diagnostic tests that are not readily available in Jamaica.

Now that one stepping stone has been laid, Jarrett is looking forward, noting that people who were HIV-positive were not able to access health coverage or health insurance plans.

"The next step that we are anticipating is for insurance companies to start having more policies geared at supporting persons who are living with HIV and AIDS," she said.

kimesha.walters@gleanerjm.com

Misunderstanding hate-crime legislation (Gleaner Letter 03.11.09)

The Editor, Sir:
I think Ian Boyne could not be more wrong on the point of the effect of hate-crime legislation on the lives of those who object to homosexuality on moral or religious grounds. Where he says, "Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots", the law cannot and does not say any such thing.

Many people oppose many laws here as a matter of principle, faith or intellect. This is the simple result of any democratic nation comprised of individuals of widely varying experiences and beliefs. In order to be thought of in the terms Boyne describes, they would have to actively discriminate based on any contrary beliefs, not simply hold them.

Boyne goes on to quote a Mr Gagnon as saying "homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are ... an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated". While I don't personally view this as a problem, for those who do, I can assure you that in my 36 years, the federal government has never mandated I "affirm" or "celebrate" anything. The assertion of this possibility would be laughably dark and Orwellian were it not for the purpose to which it is being put.

Neo-nazi and KKK groups

Hate-crime legislation in the US has not deterred neo-nazi and KKK groups from marching and proclaiming their message - however hate-filled - provided they do not commit or promote an act of violence directly. Their First Amendment right to free expression has meant, in fact, they are more often than not accompanied by a sizeable police contingency when they march. I must admit I am more than a bit gratified that the police are there to protect these marchers from a very real threat of violence.

What's more, David Duke, a known racist was elected member of the Louisiana House of Representatives from the 81st district for a term 1989-1992.

I think Boyne's citing the Old Testament is perhaps even more telling (and indicative of why our government separates liturgy and policy). While the passages he quoted cannot be denied, they may be found alongside sections commanding adulterous women to be stoned to death in public squares (their partners are spared but may have to pay for the "lost property" of the injured husband) and the proper treatment of slaves.

Earnest belief

I'm sure Boyne doesn't mean to espouse all beliefs as found literally in the Old Testament, but to cherry-pick in service of one's argument is all the more cynical. I don't think he can earnestly believe quoting scripture, regardless of context, will ever be likely to face persecution. (I can be certain of that protection here in the US, but I am a bit less familiar with the religious and speech protections in Jamaica).

I like to employ a simple intellectual exercise to any such situation. If I exchange the group in question for one I can more plainly identify with: what are my feelings on the subject?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller (German clergyman) wrote this in response to the perceived political apathy of the German people during World War II.

I'm afraid the same people who can selectively quote from the literal text of their favourite translation of the Old Testament will similarly continue to adore Obama for the virtues they identify with and ignore the messages that don't suit them.

I am, etc.,

JOSEPH SCHWARTZ

Brooklyn, NY

Tell me pastor at it again ....

'Thou shalt not lie with mankind'

Dear Pastor,
I am a black, bisexual man living in the United Kingdom (UK). I have been practising my sexuality openly for the last 22 years, and have done so without fear or persecution here in the UK. I write this to get your view on my sexuality.

I have been bisexual since 16. I believe my sexuality is not a choice, but rather the way I was born. I am lucky to be here in the UK where I am free to practise my sexuality without fear or persecution, unlike in my homeland, Nigeria, where homosexuals are killed. Nigeria is one of the seven remaining countries in the world, according to Amnesty International/ILGA (International Lesbian and Gay Association), that still have the death penalty for homosexuals in their law.


Sodom and Gomorrah

I am also a born-again Christian. I go to church regularly. I do go to both homosexual and heterosexual churches in the UK. I am a member of the UK Gay and Lesbian Christian Group. I believe there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual Christians, since we all believe in Jesus and God. We are all children of God, destined to go to heaven. There are, however, differences between so-called normal churches and gay and lesbian churches in the United Kingdom. The old and traditional so-called normal churches preach hatred against homosexuals. They say all homosexuals will go to hell and they always preach about Sodom and Gomorrah when referring to homosexuals. Is this really true? Or is it a misconception of the truth? These churches always tend to quote references in the Bible that claim to be against homosexuality.

In contrast, the gay and lesbian church always preaches tolerance of other people. Have the so-called normal churches become intolerant? What about the whole essence of Jesus as love? All Christians should exhibit love towards all people, even enemies. Black churches in the UK are even more intolerant of homosexuals becoming members of their churches.

Is homosexuality a hindrance to a man/woman going to heaven? I would like your view on this matter. Thank you.

D.G., London, England

Pastor's response
Dear D.G.,

Why don't you speak the truth? Why don't you admit that you are making excuses for being gay? You are homosexual and you should know that if a person quotes passages in the Bible that teach that homosexuality is wrong, that he/she is not preaching hatred against homosexuals. If you want to practise homosexuality, that is totally up to you, but it is wrong for you to give the impression that anybody against your lifestyle is preaching hatred against gay people. Cut out the crap!

You asked whether homosexuality was practised in Sodom and Gomorrah and the answer is yes, and God condemned it. That does not mean those who practise homosexuality can never be forgiven. But homosexuals should not believe they have the right to condemn everyone who does not accept their lifestyle and that every country should change its laws to suit them.

God expects every Christian to use his/her body to honour the Lord. Evidently, you believe that by having sex with another man, you can honour the Lord by such deeds. What a shame!


absolutely forbidden

Am I condemning you or telling you what the Bibles says? Have you ever looked at Leviticus 18:22? God says in this passage: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." The Living Bible makes it clearer. It says: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." In Leviticus 20:13, we read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Please take time to study 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27. These passages will clearly answer your question as to whether a practising homosexual is on his/her way to heaven or hell.

Pastor

Will same-sex marriages ever be accepted in Jamaica?

The front page of The Sunday Gleaner, October 25, "One Love at risk ... Amnesty wants 'full freedom for Jamaican gays'," added more ammunition to the already heated discussion about gays in Jamaica. The recent discussions have centred around Jamaican entertainer, Buju Banton's meeting with representatives of the gay community in San Francisco, California.

The Sunday Gleaner reported that Amnesty International wants an amendment to the Constitution, to give full freedom of choice to all Jamaicans. Carla Gulatta, of Amnesty International, argued that even though it appeared that such freedom was guaranteed, there were clauses which took that back.

The story further stated that Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, had made it clear that the laws of the country would not be bent to accommodate gay lifestyles.

"Therefore, there is the possibility that in the future, Parliament could pass a law that says same-sex unions are legal, but it won't be done in this Parliament - not as long as I sit here," Golding said Tuesday, October 20. The prime minister was at the opening of the debate on the Charter of Rights.

Due to the overwhelming discussion, Flair asked a few persons from different professional backgrounds, their opinion on the subject. Here are the responses to the question:

Will gay marriages be allowed?

Dr Asquith Reid, psychiatrist: "Jamaicans are against that kind of (homosexual) lifestyle. I think that no one really wants to touch this topic because they don't want others to think that they themselves are homosexuals, especially if they do not oppose it. This makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on this topic. It is not about whether homosexual marriage is right or wrong, but it's whether the institutions or government will ever do anything about it. Though a given politician may not have anything personally against it (homosexual marriage), Jamaicans as a society do. This would make it a bad political move. This is equally so with the Church. They have to take a moral stance and I can't see the Church agreeing with such marriages either. On the other hand, females may not privately be in opposition to this idea but may not even openly express it. With all that in mind, I do not see homosexual marriages happening in Jamaica in the foreseeable future."

Future unpredictable

Pastor Aaron Dumas: One can never predict the future, but I don't think homosexual marriages will happen in the near future. And I hope not to see that day either. But, the question is, will a couple be so brave to do that? And marriage ought to be between a man and a woman as God ordained it to be.

Tony Rebel, entertainer: The truth is, I have never thought about it and I really don't want to start.

Dr Sidney McGill, sex therapist: Unlike First-World countries, Jamaica is behind as it relates to social equality of homosexuals. The general level of homo-negativity is at an extraordinary high. Therefore, homosexual relationships have to be accepted by the general public as heterosexual relationships are before we can speak of homosexuals' rights to marriage. Homosexual marriages are long in coming.

EDITOR'S NOTE: We contacted principals of boys' and girls' high schools, talk-show hosts, a gynaecologist and other prominent members of our society, but they refused to comment on the topic.

The Jamaican gay issue (Gleaner lifestyle article)

The Soloist
It's back in the news again. Seems like we just can't get away from it or get enough of it. It's this homosexual issue and this time it's all this talk about fairness, equality and rights as well as respect.

My beef this time is whether as a sovereign nation, a foreign organisation has the right to tell us how to conduct our affairs. And if the majority of our citizens take issue with homosexual relationships, does anyone outside our shores have the right even to suggest they change their views? For arguments sake, cricket, not baseball is our sport of choice, does that give another country the right to come here and tell us we are wrong to love cricket? No! So if we decide that we do not like the idea of two men having sex, marrying, and even adopting children, in the same way that a man and woman does, what gives an outsider the right to dictate otherwise?

Equal under law

So let's say, all men are equal under the law and all men have the right to be who or what they want to be. And let's say, all consenting adults have the right to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the same sex or opposite sex if they choose, why does anyone even care?

And let's say we care enough to object, why do homosexuals among these same foreigners, who have seen our reaction and natural cultural beliefs about sexual behaviour, still choose to live and move and be among us? Why leave their unrestricted habitats to come live in a closet? Why not keep your baseball and allow us to play our cricket?

Has anyone stopped to look more closely into the whispers about the so-called violence against gays in the society, where violence is usually commonplace, and crimes against gays are usually perpetrated by their lovers, based on relationship conflicts? Has anyone stopped to consider that Jamaicans simply (gay or straight), have a bad habit of settling disputes violently?

'Gay hater'

So to all those who are looking on with a view to blocking our progress in any shape or form because we are a homophobic society, remember the following: The average Jamaican 'gay hater' is so paranoid:

1. He would not knowingly drink from the same glass used by a gay man in a bar.

2. He would not knowingly join the same sports team with a gay person.

3. He would not willingly sit beside a gay man in a room.

4. He would not let him hug or kiss his child.

5. He would most certainly not take his clothes off in the same changing room with him.

No matter how nubile, muscular, handsome and sexy they may look, I would advise prominent and well-heeled gay men to stay away from partners who are prone to have a violent nature.

These guys are so desperate to escape their circumstances, they will use you to escape their plight. In other words, they lead you on, then blackmail you, then kill you. Stop giving my Jamaica a more violent name than it already has. So the next time you hear about a prominent gay man being killed violently, check the facts surrounding how he lived and died.

Obama, Buju & gays

Ian Boyne writes in the Gleaner
iboyne1@yahoo.com

Jamaica's President of choice in the United States, the deeply loved Barack Obama, facilitated an historic and far-reaching victory for gays on Wednesday when he signed the first major piece of gay-rights legislation into federal law, an act seen as path-breaking as the 1960s civil rights legislation.

Large numbers of Jamaicans, who share a cult-like adoration of Obama and an even more vehement aversion to homosexuals, must be in what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance. It's just hard to hold those two things together in one heart. Rationalisation is usually the way out. What seems undeniable, though, is that Obama is the most gay-friendly president the United Sates has had - at least publicly.

From his presidential campaign he made it clear that he would advance the cause of gays as part of his overall mantra of inclusiveness. He had promised to support this new legislation, labelling as 'hate crime' violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, putting it on par with crimes against persons for racial, religious and ethnic reasons. Gay-rights activists see this as a major victory on the road to full integration in American society.

For a crime is a crime and violence is violence, so if someone gets murdered, for whatever reasons, the law has provisions to deal with that. As well-known homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has written: "The real reasons for the hate crime laws are not a defence of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that - Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate-crimes law at the time".

The amendment made into law on Wednesday was partially in honour of Matthew Shepherd, a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming, who died after a 1998 beating targeting him because he was gay. His parents led the struggle for this legislation. "This hate-crimes bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible - indeed inevitable - all future laws involving 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity', screams the Harvard and Princeton-educated theologian Robert Gagnon, who has written the finest theological work critiquing homosexuality (The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics).

Gagnon, in a paper titled, 'Why a sexual orientation and gender identity hate crimes law is bad for you', posits that this legislation "ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender and disability - an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots."

The founder of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Forum, Malcolm Lazin, was not unmindful of the significance of the Obama-signed legislation on Wednesday. He was quoted in the media as saying, "This is really the first federal gay-rights bill. So it is a literally historic moment. This is America acknowledging homophobia as a social problem". For Republicans and conservative religious folks, this is a major retreat for America, morally, as the gay lobby advances in its mission of gaining full acceptance - and even persecuting those who would beg to differ.

Fears are being expressed that free speech could be endangered by this legislation, in that strong opposition to homosexual behaviour could be construed as incitement to violence. For example, if someone quotes the Old Testament which says homosexuals are to be killed (and it does say that) and a homosexual gets killed nearby afterward, could that person be charged with inciting violence? Or if one preaches that homosexuality is an "abomination", which the Bible says, could he be prosecuted for a hate crime?

CONTINUE HERE

Jamaicans for Justice on Charter of Rights, Human rights: let's not get them wrong

The following article was submitted by civic action group, Jamaicans for Justice.

Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) is writing in hopes of bringing a human rights perspective to a number of important issues which have come to public attention in the last few weeks including the Charter of Rights and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

JFJ is deeply disappointed in how the vital issue of enacting a new Charter of Rights for Jamaica has been handled to this point. This Charter of Rights has a long history dating back to the appointment of a Constitutional Commission in 1992. That Commission had many sittings and consultations, provided an interim report in 1993, was re-appointed in 1993 specifically to consider the "Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and provided a final report under the Chairmanship of Dr Lloyd Barnett in February 1994.

This report was provided to a joint select committee of Parliament, where it languished for five years before a new draft bill entitled the 'Charter of Rights' was produced and a call for public submissions was published. Submissions were heard sporadically during 2002, and over the succeeding years numerous modifications have been made to the initial bill. What was tabled without much fanfare in April 2009 by Prime Minister Golding was the latest version, presumably agreed by members of a joint select committee of Parliament (i.e, 12 or 14 elected members of Parliament and Senators) for action by both Houses of Parliament.

new Charter of Rights

What has been completely missing over the last 16 years is any discussion of the proposed new Charter of Rights with the people. There have been no public meetings held across the island, no systematic public education campaign and very few opportunities for ordinary citizens to have any input on the text of the bill and the assumptions which underlie it. Given all that has changed in the last 16 years, shouldn't we challenge this fact?

Equally clear from the three presentations on this new version in Parliament to date is that the parliamentarians don't get it. They fail to understand that rights are not given by them to a grateful and subservient people waiting like Oliver Twist with a begging bowl, saying "please Sir, may I have some more". They clearly don't get that rights belong to every single human being in Jamaica equally, and that the people acquire them by virtue of being human, not because it suits some current political agenda.

There have been several speeches made in Parliament on this issue. First by the prime minister who spent the longest part of his talk explaining that homosexuals would not be getting any rights from him or his Government! This edifying contribution was followed by one from Robert Pickersgill for the Opposition, stating emphatically that they wouldn't be voting for any Charter of Rights that wasn't married to a provision to take away from persons on death row their right not to be subjected to cruel and inhumane punishment (a necessity they said arising from the Pratt and Morgan decision of the Privy Council).

This bizarre position seems to have been abandoned by the time Portia Simpson Miller made her presentation. Unfortunately, she too seems to believe that rights are hers for the bestowing on the grateful poor. Rather than marrying the Charter of Rights to the Pratt and Morgan decision, she instead tied them to the CCJ. If the Government gives the loyal Opposition the CCJ, (something it wasn't prepared to give itself in the intervening period since the Privy Council told them what they needed to do) then they will magnanimously vote for the Charter of Rights. (And don't worry, homosexuals will not be getting any rights from the People's National Party either.)

The parliamentarians have demonstrated that they will not be providing leadership built on values of tolerance, empathy and respect. They will be following the lowest common denominator and prejudice, fearing to empower the people, calling us to our better selves and improving the lot of all in our land.

Aside from the deeply disappointing approach of the parliamentarians, the bill in parliament has a number of flaws. We urge everyone to get a copy and read it, even if the archaic legal language makes it difficult to understand, which is one of its major flaws. (Wouldn't you like to be able to read your Charter of Rights and understand what it is guaranteeing you?) This document is meant to be shaping the nation's destiny for the 21st century. JFJ doesn't believe that this bill is currently in a state that could accomplish that goal in a positive way. Let us go back to the people, and not just go with something substandard because we are tired of looking ineffectual for not passing it.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

The PNP has now 'married' the Charter of Rights to the CCJ, once again subjecting the rights of citizens to political bargaining. JFJ has serious objections in principle to this modus operandi of our political parties because it ignores the intrinsic value of the legislation in favour of scoring political points. It speaks to the quality of our parliamentary representation.

Having said that, we agree that both these issues affect fundamental rights of the people. In the case of the CCJ, it is the people's right to have a say in the composition and character of their final court of appeal. JFJ has a long history of advocacy on this issue.

Our position on the CCJ, which is equally applicable to the Charter of Rights, is that the public must be educated about the issue; there must be robust public debate on the issue and then there must be public consultation. Every citizen has a right to have a say in how his or her country is run. This right is even more crucial when the matters to be decided are as fundamental to democracy as the alteration of one of the three pillars of government, which are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Democratic 'Best Practice' requires that the people be consulted on matters of fundamental importance to them.

During the process of education and debate leading to consultation there should be time to discuss how we can strengthen the protections for the CCJ so that the terms and conditions which affect the judiciary cannot be altered by simple majority of Caricom heads of government as they alter the Treaty of Chaguaramas. And this is not a theoretical concern; it was already done when the terms and conditions of the Judicial Services commission for the CCJ was altered a short time ago.

get it right

It is critical for our democracy that we have a court that will "stand between the power of the state government to formulate and execute legislation and policy and the citizen's right to the exercise of his fundamental rights". It is equally critical that we have a comprehensive and clearly worded Charter of Rights to be interpreted and enforced by the court as it fulfils that role.

JFJ has always said that because we, the people, are fully capable of getting it right, we must get it right and the people must be consulted. We, the people, not the politicians, must be the ones to decide the future for our children and grandchildren.

US HIV Travel Ban lifted .... Ryan White Act signed .... Obama & inclusivity again ....

President Obama said today his administration is lifting a 22-year-old ban that prevented persons with HIV/AIDS from entering the country.

"It's a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it's a step that will keep families together, and it's a step that will save lives," Obama said, noting that the process of reversing the rule began during the George W. Bush presidency.

The United States was the first country to institute such a ban, "a decision rooted in fear rather than fact," Obama said. Now only a dozen nations continue the practice. "If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it," the president said.

Obama made the announcement as he signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, which provides help to more than half a million Americans.


White was the 13-year-old from Kokomo, Ind., who in 1984 contracted AIDS after a blood transfusion, and became internationally known by fighting for his right to attend school.

White died in 1990, but his legacy lives on. Obama said that because of Ryan's courage, "we didn't just become more informed about HIV/AIDS, we began to take action to fight it."


White's mother, Jeanne, attended the White House signing ceremony (pictured).

(by David Jackson; photo by Gerald Herbert, Associated Press)

What can we learn from the new US Hate Crimes Bill?

="

Golding and Simpson Miller failed to lead article clearly shows the cowardice of our political leaders to remove any hints of rights or freedoms to GLTBQ Jamaicans because of fear, ignorance or plain hypocracy, they play to the gallery to sure up political capital.

Coincidentally we have a wonderful example of the US Hate Crime Bill being passed as we pussyfoot with our own Charter of Rights debate, a set of rights set out that have been on and off the nation's and parliament's agenda for the past 17+ years with Joint select committee after joint select committees arguing over definition of words such as "sex" "gender" worrying that the gay lobby will try to move an action to ask for marriage rights. The removal of an entire section on discrimination of persons by sexual orientation the very thing that this US bill has sought to make tantamount in as far as the death of Matthew Shepard is concerned with agitation from his family, rights groups & individuals and some state officials for nearly ten years.

see the Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Introduced in Senate)
Charter of Rights Bill a hit with US Embassy, even without LGBT rights included
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in the US


They are those who use the procreation arguments to justify their bigoted agenda totally overlooking the need to protect the minority and least amongst us. As one radio host puts it "The rule of the tyrannical majority" Jamaica has not grasped the concept of rights and freedoms for all and wish to be selective about who should or should not enjoy them, it is not universal in our context.

So what can we learn from this wonderful example from our neighbour up north?
my answers, you can form your own please:

1. Learn from the actual verbiage
2. Engage in discussions about rights, tolerance, strategies used to devise our own
3. Confront opposition in a meaningful and respectful manner
4. Community education drives to get persons to understand the importance of universal rights
5. Examine the coverage granted in the US bill for our own adoption
6. Demand our politicians stop hiding behind "red herring" topics and pontifications
7. Embrace the tolerant citizenry for peaceful co-existence
8. Resolute stance on violence and verbal attacks from homophobes
9. Case studies where appropriate for analysis
   

these are just some things that come to mind you may have a plethora of others, let's continue the dialogue to arrive at amicable solutions to this homophobic problem in Jamaica

Peace

H

Equality Florida asks you to sign letter to ‘stop murder music’

Nadine Smith at Equality Florida:



It's been just one month since five Florida performances were announced for Buju Banton. Since then, three venues have canceled the notorious singer whose lyrics call for the torture and murder of gay people.
His song "Boom Bye Bye" is advocates pouring acid on LGBT people, "burning them up bad like an old tire wheel", and shooting them in the head with an AK-47. He also sings "Anytime Buju Banton come, f--gots get up and run ... they have to die".


Do your part to stand up to anti-gay incitements to violence.

Sign the letter to venue owners and elected officials.
Buju Banton is still scheduled to perform in three Florida cities this week. Thursday, Oct. 29th, in Jacksonville, Friday. Saturday, Oct. 31st, in Miami; and a new date was added for Friday, Oct. 30th, in St. Petersburg.


We will present this letter to venue owners and elected officials
While other cities in Florida and across the country have canceled Bantons concerts, the venues in Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, and Miami have not yet responded. We're calling upon the venue owners and elected officials to take a stand against hate.
"Boom Bye Bye" has become an international gay bashing anthem. In 2004, Brian Williamson, Jamaica's leading gay activist, was violently chopped to death with a machete in his apartment in Kingston. A reporter walked to his street shortly after the murder and found a crowd of people gathered outside Williamson’s apartment singing and celebrating his murder and shouting the chorus of “Boom Bye Bye”.


Equality Florida staff have received an unprecedented flood of hate mail and threats in response to our public opposition to Banton's hateful lyrics. One staff member received a letter stating: "YOU ARE STARTING A WAR IN WHICH YOU WILL BE KILLED" And another says "YOU'LL BE 6 FEET UNDER PERMANENTLY."


WE MUST STAND UP TO THESE HATEFUL ATTACKS


So far, due to an outpouring of opposition from Equality Florida members and community allies, management at the venues in Tampa and Orlando have canceled Banton's performances; the Tallahassee event in now listed as withdrawn on the Eventful.com website; and Toyota has dropped it's sponsorship of the Miami event. Jacksonville management has not responded.
Do your part to stand up to hate in these communities.



Sign onto the letter that we will send to the venue owners and elected officials in Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, and Miami.

Golding and Simpson Miller failed to lead

October 26, 2009 - Gleaner Editorial

We wish to make two observations. First, when politicians are short of cogent and workable solutions, their default position, usually, is a reach for populist distractions - drawing the red herring, as it were.

The second is that the real test of a democracy is not only its ability to cater to the will of the majority, but how well it acknowledges and protects the rights of the minority, including people with whose ideas and concepts we may not agree. Indeed, it is this latter notion that makes a democracy, even as it remains the best form of government yet devised, the most difficult to manage.

We have been drawn to think on these issues in part because of some of the tone of the parliamentary debate on Jamaica's proposed Charter of Rights, especially remarks by Prime Minister Bruce Golding and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller. They reached for the lowest common denominator and played to the gallery, which, of course, was not necessarily the people sitting in Gordon House. Rather, it was an appeal to their ever-narrowing political base.

Enumerative fashion

The Charter of Rights is a good thing, which has the broad support of this newspaper. It seeks to set out, in enumerative fashion and relatively simple language, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Jamaican people. Importantly, it seeks to place greater limits on the capacity of the state to derogate those rights.

Significantly, however, there is no protection in this charter for the individual who faces discrimination because of his or her sexual orientation. A parliamentary committee that drafted the final recommendations contorted its way out of offering any such protection. That was, and remains, good political cover for Mr Golding and Mrs Simpson Miller and, we dare say, a goodly many members of parliament.

The fact is, Jamaica is deeply homophobic, or pretends to be. Homophobia attends the country's sense of machismo; it frees us to go gay-bashing, and not just figuratively. Indeed, the week before the MPs began to sing their platitudes to the Charter of Rights, a young man was attacked by a mob for his perceived effeminate gait. Happily, he was rescued by the police, for which he might count himself lucky.

Lack of imagination

This brings us back to where we started. The debate is taking place in the middle of a deep economic crisis, to which the Government has, up to now, displayed a patent lack of imagination or acuity. It has talked!

We are not surprised, in the circumstances, that Mr Golding found it useful to weave into his remarks a declaration that "I will not accept that homosexuality must be accepted as a legitimate form of behaviour or the equivalent of (heterosexual) marriage".

The Jamaican Parliament, Mr Golding added, would not make same-sex unions legal - "not as long as I sit here". And he inveighed against gay-rights lobbyists who wanted to undermine the country's "values or culture".

Mrs Simpson Miller was not as extreme in hiding behind the supposed inability of leaders to be "too far in front of those who are being led" and for the positions of the majority to be taken "scrupulously into consideration".

What, in reality, was on display was weak leadership and, we fear, an unintended endorsement of abuse of and discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation.

Intolerance begets intolerance (Letter to Gleaner 27.10.09)

The Editor, Sir:

While Buju Banton (Mark Myrie) is by no means the only Jamaican artiste to sing a song that promotes violence against homosexual men, he has become the target of many gay-rights groups internationally. He has had several concerts cancelled and has been met with protests at many other venues.

This may seem a bit unfair, given that he is not alone in singing such lyrics, or the fact that the song was released almost 20 years ago, and the artiste has since softened his image tremendously.

What is, however, surprising is the hypocrisy of those in Jamaica who have come out in support of Buju and others. They complain that foreigners should not interfere in Jamaica's internal matters when gays are persecuted and prosecuted and hate is spewed at several groups with impunity, but in the same breath, expect foreigners to sit by and allow those from outside to come into their countries and perpetuate the same hatred they are allowed to in Jamaica.

Minority-rights protection

The same principle of minority-rights protection that people like Buju want in places like the US, Canada or in Europe are, in principle, the same ones that gay-rights groups would like Jamaicans to protect in relation to the gay and lesbian community, among others.

On what basis should a foreigner like Buju be allowed into the US, Canada or the EU to sing freely about killing gays, while gay citizens from these countries who visit Jamaica could be subjected to 10 or more years in prison in Jamaica?

Jamaicans cannot expect to avail themselves of the freedoms in these societies when they refuse to extend similar freedoms to the citizens of these countries. Buju and others have no right to enter or perform in the US, in the same way that American gays have no right to be themselves in Jamaica.

In the same way that Jamaica feels it has the right to protect its societal values, Americans have the right to protect their values. It is all about reciprocity.

I am, etc.,

RICARDO SMALLING
rsmalling@sympatico

Let the dust settle .......... part 2

Let the dust settle part 1 spoke to the whole accusations and counter accusations between Buju Banton and the gay community in the United States predominantly San Francisco the described gay capital of the world where Buju's tour has met with fierce opposition.

Now the dust has settled somewhat what do we see? Buju seems to have won this round (lost the war overall) with more dates slowly added to his tour and the American Civil Liberties group in Miami coming in support of him in a statement issued some time ago (who cares?) they seemed to have missed the boat in as far as understanding the requests or commands in Buju's lyrics to kill gay men and the methods prescribed, of note shooting directly in the head with an Uzi.
My calling for letting the dust settle was to get us to see the landscape more clearly and get rid of the noise and smoke from opposers and supporters alike from all sides. Of note the gay people who met with him in San Francisco have not responded to the criticisms levied by some in the music industry locally and in some instances seem to suggest the meetings never happened and the photos of Buju bumping fists with gays were doctored which I found so ridiculous, folks will do anything to deny or avoid discussing issues directly that they find all kind of silly excuses.

There is also talk of Buju loosing allegedly millions from cancellations a point I have a little difficulty digesting as most of the venues are small club houses not arenas of stadiums like he used to get in his heyday of Til Shiloh CD prominence.
Will the gay groups get another chance to meet him face to face again? I doubt it unless they resort to picketing him and his shows again or some miracle in the future. I feel he now knows how to play the game with PR and press while working his contacts in the community even though he doesn't support us. It would have been good if the folks who met with him used the time to discuss the situation here in Jamaica and how to help to defuse the fiery homophobic climate in our nation with a serious view to meaningful tolerance.
Some within the opposition are trying to get information on hate crimes from the agencies of government of all places including the police, this clearly shows the still lack of knowledge of the Jamaican situation and apprising oneself at best some more before launching into actions. I hope that the endeavours are tracked and noted carefully.

Be it resolved though that the interventions from our foreign supporters are welcomed however how interested is the average GLBT Jamaican on the ground if one should poll or even just ask about the present impasse many don't even care or are just becoming aware due to mainstream media coverage especially from US cable stations as many Jamaicans have cable service, the question is whose fault is that and how do we fix that? boi mi nuh know yah sah

JFLAG's silence until recently when I feel it was forced to respond because of pronounced media coverage and the photos from the meeting on blogs and news sites worldwide was disturbing to me, the group said it was not impressed. My criticism of them and ordinary GLBT Jamaicans goes further as there hasn't been any serious public support for the interventions by the Cancel Buju Banton campaign not even so much as a response, Jamaican membership or statement on the website. I guess some are timid and don't wish to publicly show support and are emotionally there in spirit as some of the Facebook comments and private messages suggest but can we be in the shadows and cowards all the days of our lives?
Now is the time to begin picking our brains to finding formidable solutions now that the issue of Murder music has gotten the public attention it deserves from an American standpoint as actions like this are normal in Europe and the UK through their own Stop Murder Music campaigns respectively. Recently Sizzla was in the news as his show was cancelled by SMM Bern.

We have to keep the issues alive in Jamaica or it may just die as a nine day wonder as some have, while doing so however new ideas must be found to strike a balance needed to push tolerance. (fan away the extra dust)

Peace and walk good

also see:
Gays may have overstepped their bounds giving Buju ultimatum says human rights activist

Golding and Simpson Miller failed to lead (Gleaner Editorial on the Charter of Rights debate)

H

Dominican Educator believes buggery laws should be decriminalized

Interesting similarities to our local scenario on the HIV/MSM access to healthcare landscape.
A local family life educator in Dominica believes that the decriminalization of the island's buggery laws should be given consideration.Valda Bruno-Durand told a press conference organised by the Dominica Planned Parenthood Association recently that the issue should also be about accepting an individual.“It’s about accepting the choice an individual make. In terms of our laws, we know the laws against homosexuality. I think we should see it as an issue of development and an issue of health. It is now being seen as a moral and religious issue. People say things like our country will be damned; our society will become Sodom and Gomorrah.

As we see now Jamaica is not the only Caribbean territory struggling with this issue of MSM sex and HIV/AIDS intervention coupled with efforts from the religious community to chastise GLBT people by beating them with the Bible and condemnatory remarks and endorsing ecclesiastically tinged old colonial buggery laws to stifle personal freedoms. This educator like some of our local HIV experts have also spoken out to demand revision or decriminalization of the buggery laws or at least some considerations so we can deal with properly serving the MSM community in terms of treatment and education is often met with deafening silence or outright opposition from weak politicians and the religious bigots who pander to the so called popular sentiments to remain politically viable.

"You hear all these things and we seem to leave out the human aspect of it,” she said. Bruno-Durand, who is an outspoken human rights activist, also gave a religious spin on the matter. She said persons must also remember that God makes no mistake. "We use the bible as our weapon but we leave out certain aspects. No one is asking that you should become a homosexual. We are also not saying that homosexuals should be going around and encourage other individuals to become homosexuals. That is not what the issue is about.
It is about helping young persons progress,” she said.Meantime Bruno-Durand said men who have sex with men are not coming forward to get tested for HIV/AIDS. She said decriminalization of homosexuality could prompt gays to come forward and get tested.“In Dominica, in terms of our HIV statistics, we have more men than women who are testing positive.

The statistics is baffling because that is only a situation in Dominica. Everywhere else, the rates of infections are highest in women. Dominica has a very high MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) population and this is what is driving the epidemic,” he said.She said the matter should be looked at in a positive way.“We need to see how we can create a better society and not how we can pass judgment on the individuals. Too many times we tend to judge too quickly,” she added.
Buggery or homosexuality is illegal in Dominica.

Buggery in my estimation however is not homosexuality and is also practised by heterosexual couples although it is hard to quantify the levels here in Jamaica since it is a taboo issue.

H

excerpts from Dominica online

Buju gets green light to perform in Miami

Howard Campbell
Buju Banton, whose Rasta Got Soul tour of the United States has been dogged by protests from gay rights groups, will perform at the Reggae Bash show in Miami this week.

The event was in danger of being cancelled after groups like Equality Florida wrote to city officials, including Mayor Manuel Diaz, complaining that some of Banton's music incites violence against gays.

Andrew Minott of promoters Global Vybz Entertainment told The Gleaner last week that the show will take place on Saturday at the 5,000-seat James L. Knight Center.

"Everything's good, everything's on," Minott said.

According to Minott, a statement from the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) admonishing the gay groups may have saved the day. It accused them of promoting censorship.

Written by the Florida ACLU's executive director Howard Simon, the statement was published in the October 18 edition of the Miami Herald.

"I guess when they (gay groups) saw that letter, they backed off," Minott said.

Members of Global Vybz have had dialogue with the gay lobbyists. They recently appeared in a panel discussion with Equality Florida spokesperson Vanessa Brito on WAVS, a south Florida-based Caribbean radio station.

Even though is company got the green light, Minott admits the negative publicity seems to have hurt.

"Ticket sales are slow, I think all the protest talk made people weary," he said.

Equality Florida is the latest gay rights organisation to come out against Banton performing in a major US city. Similar protests forced the cancellation or rescheduling of Rasta Got Soul shows in Salt Lake City, Utah, Columbus, Ohio, Richmond, Virginia and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The groups say their protests are driven by the violent tone of Banton's 1992 anti-gay anthem, Boom Bye Bye.

Banton met gay activists prior to his show in San Francisco two weeks ago.

They demanded he reach out to homosexuals, including those in Jamaica.

News you can use - The right to duty counsel

The Legal Aid Council, an arm of the Ministry of Justice provides legal services for persons who are in police custody and are without privately retained lawyers through the Duty Counsel Programme.

The programme provides attorneys-at-law, available to persons who are in police custody either as a result of being a suspect in a criminal matter or are being accused (charged with an offence), but yet to appear in a court of law.

The Legal Aid Regulations stipulates that everyone has a right to Duty Counsel.

How does the system work?

To ensure that the system works effectively and efficiently, it is important that law enforcement personnel advise detainees or accused persons of their right to Duty Counsel. Each police station has a list of the names and contact information of a duty counsel available to that station. The detainee himself/herself may ask the police to contact the duty counsel. No questioning of the suspect should be done in the absence of his/her lawyer.

In cases where police personnel are unsuccessful in contacting counsel, the Legal Aid Clinics or the Legal Aid Council may be contacted for assistance.

What is the role of the Duty Counsel?

Having accepted a matter, Duty Counsel will visit the lock-up, correctional institution or remand facility and interview the client, give advice, provide representation at a question and answer session or identification parade. The lawyer may also apply for station or court bail on the first court appearance of the accused, and where the circumstances require, file a Writ of Habeus Corpus to prevent suspects or accused persons remaining in custody for lengthy periods.

Is there a cost?

Duty Counsel is available regardless of the offence the person is suspected of or charged with. There is no cost to the recipient of Duty Counsel, thereby guaranteeing the citizen access to legal representation. No application form is necessary to obtain Duty Counsel. The lawyer's duties end at the first court appearance of the accused or at such earlier time, for example on the release of the client.

What happens after the first court appearance?

After the end of Duty Counsel, where further assistance is needed, an application may be made for legal aid. If granted, an attorney is assigned to the matter for trial.

Currently, of a panel of approximately 320 attorneys, more than 190 are enlisted for Duty Counsel requests.

For further information regarding the Duty Counsel Programme, contact the Legal Aid Council, located at 72 Harbour Street, Kingston, telephone 948-6999 or the Justice Education Unit of the Ministry of Justice, telephone 908-4761.

The hypocritical and opportunist religous right

the caption is so appropriate in our scenario......

So as we see in the post following this one from the Gleaner that the church has, as a matter of convenience sided with the DJs on bashing homosexuality, at least so they claim. In trying to distance themselves from the violence as advocated by Buju Banton and others they, the religious right to me are looking like a bunch of opportunist and waggonists using this convenient sorded episode to push their bigoted positions.

Interestingly the same dancehall artists who they now side with also promote casual sex with minors, abuse of women and ganja smoking, murder of informants, vigilante justice, glorifying acts of gun crimes as measurements of being a true man among other acts deemed sinful and abominations by the church are not met with such a loud chorus of opposition, where are they on these matters?

(night sounds and a cricket chirps)

How selective these church people are? that is not say that all christians or church folk are like this as there are more enlightened folks in the crowd they just don't or can't be bothered I guess to challenge the crap coming out of the penny section. The use of the Bible is where the selectivity really is, the same verses used as quotes to condemn us (noteably Leviticus 18) also has a list of others wrongs and ills which were prescribed for Jews to Moses at that time and to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah argument is so lame as we all know that that homosexuality was not the predominant reasons why it was destroyed. Sometimes one should ignore this crap but I think also we must let people make fools of themselves and the public is slowly becoming weary of all this constant arguments over persons orientation and related activities. The church should concern itself about the poor and indigent who are visible to our eyes everyday on the streets who really need the help, prayer and love, the homeless children in homes whoneed care and support and stop trying to pry through my and others keyhole to see who we are sleeping with.

Waggonists
This is not the first time the anti gay church lobby has joined in a chorus of sorts to echo their anti gay sentiments, those sentiments are more often times than not have an invitation to tolerance or peace. The rhetoric is usually condemnatory in its form yet the same Bible that is used to beat us says judge not and ye shall not be judged:

Judging Others
Lk. 6.3738, 4142
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

How we forget the other parts of the Bible and conveniently use parts that seem divisive to justify bigotry and hate sending us to hell from the pulpit and applauding yourselves for doing a marvellous job.

I am not a Bible genius but certain actions of the church or some of it's members warrant examination. Didn't Christ also say come as you are and have we forgotten the woman with the alabaster box?

Peace

H

The Church and the DJs agree (Gleaner 25.10.09)

please also view:
Meeting controversy, Music industry split over Buju's face to face with gays

... but his pockets burn, Cancellations of shows because of gay advocates cost artiste millions

American civil liberties group slams gays for trying to prevent shows featuring Jamaican DJ

Buju did the right thing ...

Athaliah Reynolds wrote
Some church leaders have come out in full support of Jamaica's dancehall fraternity while condemning the actions of international gay rights groups that are placing immense pressure on many local artistes.

While the church leaders who spoke with The Sunday Gleaner argued that it was wrong to incite violence against any group, most agreed that the dancehall artistes had a right to express their disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle.

"To those artistes who have continued to speak out against that kind of lifestyle in their music, I'll encourage them to keep up the pressure, not in a violent way, but certainly to continue to proclaim the message," Bishop Delford Davis of the Power of Faith Ministries in Portmore said.

the truth

According to Davis, while the church is completely against violence, the truth must be told and not censored.

"Truth is very costly, I think they should be strong enough to maintain their position in as much as they are being penalised. A price has always had to be paid for truth."

Davis said his message to the DJs would be to remove the element of violence from their music, but continue to spread the message that a lifestyle of homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

"Do not incite violence, but certainly continue to propagate the message of sanctity of human sexuality. We fully support the message that is proclaimed of God's purpose and plan for procreation and human sexuality," he argued.

For pastor Bobby Wilmot of the Joy Town Community Development Founda-tion when the gays took their lifestyle into the public domain they opened themselves for criticisms.

"When you were practising your homosexual lifestyle privately, fine, that's in your space. But the moment you bring it into the public domain you are saying to people they must accept it and therefore that gives me the right to reject it," he argued.

Wilmot continued: "Now as a man of God, I would reject it from a word of God, but the man who is in the dancehall, who is not coming necessarily from a Christian perspective, this is how he operates. He's going to come at it in his way."

Wilmot said while he does not support violence, he has to agree with the stance of the dancehall man.

"I would respond by saying Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed by God, so take heed to that, there's a lesson there!"

Wilmot bashed the gay community for forcing the cancellation of concerts featuring some dancehall artistes.

"When you cut me off like that, you are preventing me from bringing my views to the public - you are not fair, it can't be right," he said. "You say this is my lifestyle before the public, I must be allowed also to say I am against it."

Reverend Donald Webley of the, Rosemount Missionary Church in Montego Bay, St James was critical of both groups.

"The same level of force being used by the gay community to undermine the dancehall artiste is similar to the way in which some dancehall artistes have been advocating violence towards them. Both of them seem to be using a similar approach to get their messages across."

He added: "I think the dancehall artistes need to have the opportunity to express themselves but of course not in a violent way."

Webley said the recent demands of the gay community of reggae artiste, Buju Banton are ludicrous. "The demands that have been made upon him are outrageous and unreasonable."

According to Webley, Buju should publicly apologise and withdraw the anti-homosexual anthem Boom Bye Bye because it is clearly violent.

But Webley argued that the homosexual community should not use its power to undermine Buju's ability to earn or to support a lifestyle that he is morally against.

homosexuals right

For Pastor Raphael Thomas of the Annotto Bay Gospel Hall believes that the homosexual community is right to target the concerts of some Jamaican artistes.

"I don't think it is right to promote violence against those who practise that kind of lifestyle, although it is not something that the church can endorse. They are people that the church must reach out to and seek to help them just like persons who are involved in other kinds of activities that are not considered right."

According to Pastor Thomas the violent approach of the dancehall artiste is not right.

"We respect the orientation of the DJs and their strong disagreement with that kind of lifestyle but it still does not give them a right to promote violence against the homosexuals." Pastor Thomas said.

"There are other ways that we can seek to correct, what I consider to be the unacceptable lifestyle of the gay community without seeking to be violent towards them," added Thomas.

athaliah.reynolds@gleanerjm.com

Charter of Rights Bill a hit with US Embassy, even without LGBT rights included

Vivian Crawford (second left), executive director, the Institute of Jamaica (IOJ), entertains Dr Don Baker (left), political officer at the US Embassy in St Andrew, and Katherine Rafaniello (right) and Bianca Obllins, the embassy's vice-consuls, at the IOJ Oct 22, 2009. - Norman Grindley/Chief Photographer

Meanwhile the US accepts New Hate Crime Bill to include GLBT people, how ironic?
Congress Extends Hate Crime Law To Gays

here is the US Embassy article in today's Gleaner:
Kimesha Walters

AN AMERICAN political officer is lauding Jamaica for creating a Charter of Rights Bill, saying it was healthy for an emerging economy to recognise the rights of its citizens. The officer also pointed to the possibility of an improved relationship with the United States given the push for a new charter.

Dr Don Baker says the United States has a similar policy, and he suspects that the Jamaican format will be similar.

However, he noted that there is no single way of being a democracy.

Baker revealed that despite tarnishes due to crime and violence, the country has maintained a good report in the US Embassy's annual human-rights reports, specifically in the area democracy.

"Jamaica respects the human rights of its citizens, for the most part. It has some challenges in terms of crime and those things but we're hopeful that Jamaica will continue to address these issues," Baker told The Gleaner after a presentation at the Institute of Jamaica (IOJ) yesterday.

The political officer is responsible for drafting the annual human-rights report at the US Embassy. To complete that report, Dr Baker looks at several factors such as the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and religious liberty. These, he says, provide an assessment for how well Jamaica is doing in providing for its citizens' human rights.

Baker said the importance of the report can be seen in the reactions of countries, such as China, to negative comments.

"It's not as a direct result of the report, but countries that are not democratic do not respect the rights of their citizens, don't have as close ties with the US as with democratic nations," Baker explained.

"Oftentimes, there might be sanctions or penalties for countries that abuse their citizens or don't recognise their rights," said Baker.

my two cents:
Have the US Embassy people realised that GLBT people are ignored?
Maybe we have to lobby them to bring pressure to bear on the government this is of course excluding the smoke screen debate on gay marriage as invented by the gay christian right movement, namely the Lawyers Christian Fellowship

Germany gives pension rights to gay civil partners

By Jessica Green

Germany's high court today ruled that civil partners of government employees are eligible to receive the same pension rights as their straight married counterparts.

Germany’s high court strengthened the rights of gay couples on Thursday, ruling that government employees with registered civil unions are entitled to the same pension plans as married couples.

The Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, the highest court in the country, heard the case of a Hamburg public servant who had been in his job since 1991.

The public-sector pension company VBL had refused to consider him in the same way as a married person, despite the fact he had been in a civil partnership for eight years.

Under VBL's stance, he would have received €74 less each month than a heterosexual married man, while his partner would receive no surviving dependants’ pension if he died.

The court ruled today that VBL's position was unconstitutional.

According to The Local, the unnamed man's lawyer Dirk Siegfried said: "I see this as a very big step for the equality of homosexual marriage not only for employee pensions, but in many other areas too."

In August, the same court confirmed that gay and lesbian people can adopt their partner's children, overturning a previous court ruling.

It rejected the argument that to allow the female partner of a child's mother to adopt would undermine the rights of the other biological parent.

A recent study revealed that 6,600 children in Germany are being raised by gay and lesbian parents.

However, gay or lesbian people or couples cannot adopt children they are not related to.

Social Democrat politicians, including Germany's Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries, have called for a change to the law.

Gay and lesbian couples can register their partnerships and their rights include most of those of marriage, including the possibility of stepchild adoption, but they are denied the same tax benefits.

Source TL News
A failure to give gay partners the same benefits infringes the basic right to equal treatment, the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe said.

The decision nullified an earlier ruling from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) regarding a Hamburg man who has been a public servant since 1991 with a supplementary pension. The public-sector pension company VBL – the largest such company in the nation – refused to give the man married status, despite the fact that he’d been living in a registered civil union for eight years. This meant that his retirement benefits would be €74 less each month, and his partner would receive no surviving dependants’ pension in the event of his death.

But constitutional law forbids privileging one group above another, the court found. VBL is now required to adjust its benefits.

“I see this as a very big step for the equality of homosexual marriage not only for employee pensions, but in many other areas too,” the Hamburg man’s lawyer Dirk Siegfried said.

Openly gay Green party MP Volker Beck called the decision a “conclusive breakthrough.”

The legal protection of marriage and family can no longer be used to discriminate against homosexual couples, Beck added, calling the ruling a “clear defeat for the conservative ideologists” in among Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union.

He also encouraged the German government to give homosexual couples equal treatment in tax law.