Give Us a Break!
Jamaica
Observer, November 22, 2004
By Christopher Burns
Jamaica is a sovereign nation and, as such, the elected
government has the sole responsibility to enact laws and determine the
legislative agenda. Based on special circumstances, it is expected of citizens
to demand changes to existing laws and direct national dialogue as they see
fit.
While it is upsetting when foreign groups flex their
muscles and attempt to force a government to acquiesce to an omnibus of
policies they support or want implemented, it is more shameful and troubling
for local lobby groups to attempt to destabilise the very institutions on
which an entire country depends, in pursuit of questionable objectives. It is
dishonourable to assert that the Jamaican Government is acting in concert with
the police to kill the country’s citizens.
This assertion deserves the widest condemnation. Those
responsible for its propagation must answer questions regarding the
authenticity of their source and provide evidence to substantiate their claim.
The nation cannot afford to have its reputation impugned
based on malicious rumours or unmanaged emotions.
It is fundamental for the preservation of an orderly
society that those who represent various special interest groups balance their
emotions with reason and work hard to resist making snide remarks that could
be detrimental.
I am uncomfortable with, sick and tired of, the constant
bombardment from all sorts or groups that seek to stamp their standards on us;
when it is not Amnesty International, it’s OutRage, or Human Rights Watch;
each with different agendas; but one common motive—to “must an bound
us”.
I think the constant attacks and insults on the duly
elected government, the judiciary, and the police constitute more than an
assault on the spirit of the 1962 declaration. It is a systematic effort to
modify the letters of that famous declaration.
This is not to suggest that groups like Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch are entirely oppressive. In fact, their
involvement and advocacy around the world have brought great benefits and
improvements to the lives of millions.
Even so, as is the case with Amnesty, these organisations
appear to have a fatal attraction to Jamaica, to the point of brutal insanity.
Amnesty International and others would do well to begin to recognise Jamaica
as an independent state.
The Jamaican government cannot dictate policies in
England or the United States. It simply has no jurisdictional authority to do
so; and there are no reciprocal agreements in place that provide for such
involvement.
The extent to which OutRage is successful in getting its
government to act within its best interest depends solely on the milieu in
which it operates, but cannot misinterpret its UK mandate to sanction changes
in Jamaica.
Our citizens have to conform to the rule of law in other
countries, whether they like to or not. Take, for example, recent developments
in England concerning some Jamaican DJs. The DJs have come under pressure from
the British gay group, OutRage.
This group is staunchly opposed to the use of violent
lyrics by some dancehall DJs, who the group claims could incite physical
violence towards them. Well, OutRage is within its rights, as a British group,
to influence and pressure its government to protect its members.
Consequently, we (here in Jamaica) can quarrel until the
cows come home, the British government cannot shirk its commitment or
responsibility to protect its homosexual constituents, even if it means the
suppression of free speech for some, let alone non-white foreigners.
No one can deny that some of these DJs needed a forceful
reminder that the lyrical contents of many of their dancehall songs leave much
to be desired. Mark you, it is not just violence against “auntie men” that
needs changing; it is violence against, and disrespect for women and children
that must change as well.
The Human Rights Watch group believes it has the
authority to dictate Jamaica’s legislative agenda and has called for changes
to the buggery laws.
To begin with, it was the Act of 1533, which first made
buggery an offence under English criminal law. This law survived in various
forms in England until 1967. An amendment in 1861 substituted life
imprisonment for the penalties of death and forfeiture of property. However,
the direct effects of this law were not restricted to England.
Because of England’s colonial power and tendency to
impose its entire legal structure on its colonies, legal prohibitions against
homosexual activity derived from this law extended well outside of England. In
Scotland, for instance, the law remained until 1979, and in many American
states, “sodomy” laws are still on the books, as also in former British
colonies in the Caribbean.
There is no law in Jamaica that specifically addresses
homosexuality. There is the Offences against the Person Act that prohibits
“acts of gross indecency” (a person can be charged for exposing himself or
for engaging in sexual intercourse in public).
There is the offence called buggery, which falls under
Section 76 of that Act; the Act defines buggery as “anal intercourse between
a man and a woman, or between two men”.
There is some rationale for supporting an amendment to
the law, because if a police officer has probable cause to enter a man’s
house, and finds him having anal sex with his wife, the officer could charge
them for a criminal offence. With the sexual revolution the way it is today,
all sorts of crazy sexual activities take place during intimacy, and I am
unsure of the intent of the law as it seeks to punish or protect.
It is always, almost, important first to consider the
historical, socio-cultural imperatives and uniqueness of a country before
attempting to make far-reaching changes to that country’s social or cultural
arrangements. It seems to me that most of the violence-crimes that homosexuals
face are from other homosexuals and not from the wider society.
Human sexuality and, indeed, humanity itself, hold great
complexities that we will never understand, let alone accept. It is prudent,
therefore, while we hold our individual beliefs and preferences to “live and
let live”.
If Human Rights Watch wants to help, then it could help
to teach tolerance and responsibility, because changing the laws will do very
little to improve the way Jamaicans view the issue.
[Home] [Editorials] [Jamaica]
