Beenieman axed from European concert

Beenie Man is "heartbroken" at his axing from the Big Day Out after concerns were raised over homophobic lyrics in some of the Jamaican reggae artist's songs.

The controversial artist was axed just a week after being named to play at the Big Day Out in Auckland on January 15 after an outcry from gay rights groups.

Organisers 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 amongst our audience members and would mar the enjoyment of the event for many".

But in an email sent to GayNZ.com and other media, titled I Do Not Condone Act Of Violence Toward Others, Beenie Man - real name Moses Davis - said his lyrics were misunderstood because of cultural differences.

"People sometimes may misunderstand my lyrics because of slang, metaphors, jargons and dialect; it is not intended to be harmful," he said.

"We live in a diverse society, the haves, have-nots, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, light and dark skinned, homosexuals and heterosexuals. At times we wrongly ridicule each other for beliefs. One thing we have in common, we are all human beings and should strive for peace, equality and love.

"I want my music to bring people together and for them to dance, feel good and enjoy it."

He said his controversial songs - which include the lyrics, "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays" - were directed at men who exploited young boys, not homosexuals.

"I wrote the lyrics at a point in my life when I younger and was seeing a lot of exploitation of poor and defenseless young boys in the garrison - where I too was born - by rich men," he said in the email.

"When I wrote the lyrics boys were raped and murdered often - even recently a nine-year-old went to buy cigarettes for a man, came back and was raped and murdered. The act of sodomy was my concern when I wrote the song.

"I realize that those men were not gays but were predators or paedophile which is not a common word in my dialect hence the perception when generalising. I am older and realised the difference after.

"I have worked with gays and lesbians on videos and photo shoots and they have done great. I do not sing or perform any of those songs nor promote any violence on stage. I have been performing all over the world and there hasn't been any issues of recent."

He said he was disappointed to no longer be performing in Australia or New Zealand and asked Big Day Out organisers to apologise to him.

Ad Feedback "I realize that I have never been to your country and what was old forgotten news in which I have apologised, is now new news because of me coming and now it's your turn for an apology. I am a music ambassador for the world and the last thing I would want to do is spread hate or violence towards others.

"Please know that I am sincere and right now I am proposing peace, one world... One Love regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation and nationality."

source: STUFF.CO.NZ

Bizarre commentary by Jamaican literature prof on violent lyrics

Udo Schuklenk, Ethics Proffessor and Journalist responds to Miss Carolyn Coopers' piece in the Gleaner 01.11.09 on Buju Banton's original sin (see posted below)

"Part of the responsibility for this, it has been suggested by some, are antigay violent lyrics by local artists calling in their songs for the murder of gays and lesbians. Here's the take of a local academic arguing that gays and lesbians who call for such artists' concerts to be canceled and boycotted are 'pathological'. Check out her take on the issue first, and then read my commentary below. I sent it to the paper that published her OpEd, I doubt you will see mine there, though."

To whom it may concern:

Professor Cooper's editorial, well-intentioned and unusually considerate (by Jamaican standards) doesn't add up. She complains essentially that a Jamaican singer whose repertoire included a song calling for the killing of gay people is still subjected to boycott campaigns by gays and lesbians in other countries. She calls such campaigns 'perverse'. Cooper considers the offending song's lyrics 'infamous', however anyone not wanting the singer to perform in their neighbourhood is acting under a 'particularly perverse pathology'. Really, is my attempt at keeping such artists out of my country sick, Professor Cooper? So, our Jamaican artist sings infamous songs, while those who would be at the receiving end of his murderous art are sick (aka pathological). Nice touch professor, truly a well-balanced statement. You should be safe in homophobic Jamaica (whatever that means these days).

What reasons has Professor Cooper on offer for her take on the issue?

Well, for starters, she points out that our artist hero hasn't sung the song in question for awhile and launched recently a CD hoping it would be bought by amongst others gays, lesbians, and - guess what - even slim people. Let me just say that to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet apologized and retracted the song in question. That a more market savvy performer tries to increase market share is understandable, but surely shouldn't be seen as evidence for a changed mind set.

Comes the professor's next reason: the US based ACLU is defending the artist's 'right' to perform. The ACLU, of course, also defends the KKK's right to propagate its racist views in public. It's the result of a particularly silly bit of US Constitution that puts virtually no limits on speech acts, unlike any other country in the world. You could not make such statements anywhere in Europe (neither the Jamaican artist's 'lyrics' nor the KKKs racist rabble-rousing). The result is that such societies are more cohesive and peaceful than the USA.

And another lost-case type argument from our literary professor. She claims, citing an unsubstantiated statement from an ACLU activist, that there is no causal evidence that hate speech calling for violence against minority groups leads to such violence. There is an obvious reason for this: actions usually have multiple causes, some conscious, others unconscious. We do know that propaganda works; why it shouldn't work in a pathologically homophobic place such as Jamaica remains a mystery to me. Gay people have experienced time and again spikes in anti-gay violence following high-profile homophobic statements by artists or politicians and the like. Equally, many minority ethnic people in Britain were deeply incensed when the BBC permitted recently the BNP leader Nick Griffin to speak on a program. They pointed out that the mainstreaming of racism will undoubtedly lead to an increase in racist violence. I wonder whether Professor Cooper fully appreciates the implications of her feeble attempt at denying the link between homophobic statements calling for violence against gays and lesbians and the occurrence of such violence.

Her last unsubstantiated claim is that fans potentially engaging in homophobic violence would not do so after dancing to artists' tunes encouraging them to kills gays and lesbians. Is she seriously suggesting that there might be people out there who were considering killing gays and lesbians and then these folks get prevented from doing this because they attend a concert with an artists calling on them to go through with their tentative plans? What can I say, this surely is a breathtaking empirical claim without any basis in fact.

So, there you go, now you know why us folks outside your island go out of our way to have your violence and art kept where it belongs, namely on your island - as your problem, not ours. Let Buju apologise for this song and we will welcome him with open arms.

A reponse from "No special rights for gays" writer

No special rights for gays post had a letter that was originally published in the Gleaner 30.10.09 to which I had responded to the writer, Michael Dunn. He has responded in bold lettering I might add. Clearly this is one of the Jamaican christian bigots living in the US of all places and then turning to criticise gays here. Hypocritical is putting it midly I say. I decided to publish this exchange just to show the ridiculous notions some people have of GLBTQ people even when they are living in a first world country one would think experience should teach some wisdom. I am not gonna waste my time any further with this individual.

Here is the reponse:
I realise that my letter to the editor has stirred up some ants nest amongst your kind but let me state that even though you are drawing my attention to President Obama being the most outspoken President on gay rights and him signing the bill expanding the law against hate crimes to include disabled, gender and gays (noticably last on the list), may I also direct your attention to the fact that he is also the first President to have brought so publicly to the White House the real meaning of upholding ideal marriage values that should exist between a man and a woman and their kids which he is hoping will be a learning curve to change the loss of sanctity to marriage which the American society has suffered over the years.

Those in the know also will tell you that the strong spiritual beliefs of President Obama does not allow him to accept a homosexual relationship as a personal endorsement but the game of politics is one which politicians play more out of expediency than personal beliefs.The nature of hate crimes in the USA is substantially different from Jamaica. Gays here are less likely to be attacked in public than Jamaica because the USA is not a homophobic society but the passage of this bill will do very little to protect them any further than the passage of the bill to protect blacks has done to protect them against hate crimes. In Jamaica, the facts are that most homosexuals who have been murdered had it done to them by their own lovers because of the high degree of jealousy which exist within that group, platonic relationships is a prohibition.

The be all and end all of this whole debate is that there is no need to waste legislative time formulating bills to protect any special group when the spiritual culture of that society such as the USA and Jamaica will never embrace it or even for that matter obey it and finally, you are asking us to extend tolerance as mere mortals, have you all asked God, who is immortal, what is his tolerance level to the reprobation of mankind, whom he created, to this immoral activity considering his response to Sodom and Gomorrah and how accepting will he be of your kind when he returns to judge mankind? also bear in might that drawing corrulations to wife beating, child abuse, rape, etc. does not add any credence to the acceptance of your nasty activities and no one will convince me that God created intimacy to be fulfilled in a lateral relationship as man+man or woman+woman and it was never his plan for kids to be raised in such relationships as he would have made it possible to reproduce in such a unit. I will not step back on my campaign against any special recognition for gays both here in the USA and my country of birth, Jamaica.
Take heed.

I made myself a promise not to argue with homosexuals about what's right or wrong because inherently, most of them know that that type of relationship is totally wrong because no one was created by a Holy God to have homosexual intentions, that is clear by how we were physically built and the natural tendencies that were instilled in us. Regardless of what anyone may say, homosexuallity is an acquired and learnt behaviour brought on by sinful intentions.It is none of your business why I choose to live in the USA and just to inform you that if the USA was a homophobic society much of what I encounter on a daily basis in public places would not outlive the light of day in Jamaica.
The views I hold for Jamaicans are the same I hold here because the natural laws of God are increasingly being pressured here and therefore I have to join those to help push back these forces of evil. I would ask you kindly to lay off and consider this coversation closed because if you continue, I will take pleasure in verbally hitting where it hurts.
MIKEY-D.
Optimist by Nature.....One Love!!

my final email:
No one is asking anyone to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, if so point out where that was done, don't just spew things without proper references.

Contrary to your belief that the US is not a homophobic society ... why would a hate crimes bill be needed ...think carefully before typing and don't let emotions crowd rational reasoning.

Only recently there was an incident caught on tape (unfortunately removed from YouTube) of a man attacked by two men. Plus the recent set of transgender attacks which include murders the difference is the system is designed to deal with issues like those hence the hate crimes bill again, if it weren't for the parents of Matthew agitating and using the respective legal recourses well ................

Even if the president does not support gay marriage as you have espoused he recognises that people are to be recognised which is the germane of the points, who people choose to sleep with or have a long term relationship with is not for anybody to judge or speculate after all it's the same Bible parts of which are conveniently used to beat us to the ground that says "Judge not lest ye be judged" then it's no wonder the opposition between pro and anti gay support are and will be always at odds until we agree to have tolerance.

Your response also missed the real reason as you had said for the letter which is the Gleaner's editorial are your views the same since my response?

Marriage Issue:
As far as I am concerned marriage over the centuries have been redefined to make it look the way it looks now and is more a legal process than a ceremonial one. The cohabitation issues that follow the recognised public union between two people is left up the to individuals so united.

When gay groups or individuals ask for "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" it is not to live as a man and a woman and the misconception is pushed to bolster the anti gay position but to gain the relevant benefits accompanying the legally recognised union. That is the main thrust for demanding that recognition. Benefits such as death, health, pension including spousal is what counts.

I am certain you were addressed respectfully in my response but then again I don't expect better from folks these days who are clearly intolerant yet christian.

As Mr Ian Boyne puts it in his article today the discussions are too loaded with emotions and must be done in a rational and calm setting.

The JFJ Gleaner piece today as well clearly has shown the importance of rights equitably and justly distributed and the weakness of leadership in Jamaica. It is kinda hypocritcal for you to have left Jamaica I assume to live in the US where gays and other peoples exist under laws and a justice sytem that recognises them then to criticise Jamaica from there. HHmmmmm

Mr. Seaga has also has a piece on the key points of the Charter I suggest you peruse it.

No one was suggesting you step back from anything what are people like you afraid of that makes you get so defensive when someone suggest equality or tolerance specifically to LGBT issues. If homosexuality was contagious you would have had already as during your lifetime you have come across a gay person openly or clandestine.

As for murders real gays don't have to pretend to be gay in order to "eat a food" and when the hand is pulled then violence sets in. Read between the lines.

End

Carolyn Cooper on Buju Banton's original sin

Miss Cooper (dressed in white) was present at Buju's CD launch on April 22, 2009.

please also see, Buju Banton has to rethink The "Fax Machine" comments from GJW that has a related piece of his album launch.

Miss Cooper writes:

Like many fundamentalist Christians in Jamaica (and across the globe), Buju Banton was taught to take the Bible literally. According to Genesis Chapter 1, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Chapter 2 is a different story. God first made man then realised He had made a mistake: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an helpmeet for him." God takes one of the ribs of man and makes woman.

In this rib-tickling version, woman is not conceived as the partial reflection of a God who is jointly male and female. She is a glorified helper. Having started life as one of the ribs of man, she is stuck to his side. She has no agency. Her sole function is to make life easy for 'bafan' man. "Is not me seh so; is di Bible." Despite these variations, the moral is the same: the pairing of male and female is divinely ordained.

Not surprisingly, the second creation story introduces the subject of sex. 'Man a yard' quickly realises that woman, this gift of God, can serve a delightful purpose: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

The wicked serpent 'mash up di dolly house' by inveigling them to disobey God and eat what they were not supposed to eat. 'Dem bow.' Thanks to the devil, sex was pathologised for good. The man and the woman discovered that nakedness was shameful.

ABOMINABLE HOMOSEXUALITY

Furthermore, the Bible condemns variations on the coupling of male and female. In both the Old and New Testaments there are recurring warnings about the fundamental evil of homosexuality. Leviticus 20:13 explicitly sentences homosexuals to death: "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."

Here is the genesis of the bloody lyrics of many dancehall DJs. Fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Bible provide the divinely sanctioned justification for attacking homosexuals. As an impressionable teenager, brought up in Jamaica, Buju Banton can be forgiven for composing the infamous lyrics of Boom By By . The story goes that he was inspired to write the lines in response to the rape of a boy by an adult male. The youthful DJ translated the archaic language of the King James Version of the Bible into graphic street talk. The imported Hollywood gun culture provided the primary image for the song in which the sound of bullets ricochets with rhythmic precision. In the best biblical tradition, the song called down judgement on sinners for the crimes of paedophilia, buggery and rape.

After 'Boom By By'

Buju Banton no longer includes Boom By By in his performance repertoire. I speculate that, like many liberated Christians, the mature artist now knows that you really can't take everything in the Bible literally. Both adulterers and homosexuals are sentenced to death in the same chapter of Leviticus. So why attack only homosexuals?

It could also be a case of responding to the pressures of the market. At the April launch of his Rasta Got Soul CD at the University of the West Indies, Buju said his music was for everybody: "the young, the old, the gay, the lesbian, the obese, the slim."

But some hard-core gay-rights activists will have none of it. They are fixated on Boom By By. Buju's US tour this year has been bedevilled by protests and show cancellations. It makes you wonder if it's not a particularly perverse pathology that makes these activists hug up Boom By By.

Is not an easy road

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has now said that enough is enough. A joint statement issued by Howard Simon, executive director, and Robert Rosenwald, director of the Union's, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender) Advocacy Project, condemns the censorship of Buju Banton and the cancellation of concerts.

Simon and Rosenwald rightly argue that "the Buju Banton song in question is vile and offensive. But despite its hateful message, it is protected speech under the Constitution." They also assert that, "as to the claim that the song lyrics are incitement, Banton has sung his song many times, including during a previous appearance in Miami, with no ensuing violence. There is no basis to make the leap from a hateful and offensive pop song to incitement to riot".

Lyrical violence may even be cathartic. It could be a cleansing alternative to literal acts of violence. If the ancient Greeks could have had their catharsis in the theatre, why can't Jamaican youth have theirs in the dancehall?

Is not an easy road. Buju Banton is still being victimised because of a single song recorded more than two decades ago. Jamaican proverbial wisdom warns, "is not everything good to eat good to talk." Or in this instance, "is not everything not good to eat good to talk." Is a pity Buju didn't learn this fundamental lesson early in his career.

Carolyn Cooper is professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com

No special rights for gays (Gleaner Letter 30.10.09)

The Editor, Sir;
I see where an editorial in this newspaper has chastised both the prime minister and leader of the Opposition for not pushing to have special protection rights for violence against homosexuals inserted in the Charter of Rights Bill now before the Jamaican House of Representatives.

I am in total opposition to the views of this editorial. I am sure the writer is aware we already have laws to deal with crimes and violence against the person.

Anyone, be he preacher, teacher, gay or straight, having any act of violence committed against him or herself, has protection under existing laws.

Global campaign

Gays have stepped up their campaign across the globe, seeking new legislative protection for their behaviour in public places.

But bowing to these gay rights activists by providing them with separate laws from the rest of the citizenry would only be adding status to their behaviour which is best kept indoors to avoid any violent response, especially in a homophobic society such as Jamaica's.

Laws should never be enacted for special interests because with such precedence just about every interest group would start lobbying for their own agendas.

To add insult to injury, gays seem to be on a lobby, both in Jamaica and the United States, to make the act of extortion a legal entity in their now noted demands of monetary compensation from sales of music by artistes who verbally oppose them. Should recording artistes now lobby for laws to protect them from extortion by gays? No, there is already an existing law to convict extortionists.

Laws are enacted to convict the lawless, whether the offence committed is carried out against gays or straight and, therefore, I trust the passage of the Charter of Rights Bill will give no special legal rights to any persons or groups above any other.

I am, etc.,

MICHAEL DUNN
micberd@yahoo.com
Tampa, Florida

here is my email to him:
Sir,

Nobody is asking for special rights for gays if you haven't noticed President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Bill a day ago maybe you ought to read the document and see what it says.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.909:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-xUV61eUI&feature=player_embedded here is his message after signing listen carefully to the reasons for doing so.

President Obama on his feet:
"This not about our laws but who we are as a people, it's about whether we value one another whether we embrace our differences than allowing them to becoming a source of malice ....... the moment we fail to see in another our common humanity, the very moment we fail to recognise in a person the same fears and hopes, same passions and imperfections the same dreams we all share .. are free and equal .... able to persue their own version of happiness"

The main thrust of the Gleaner's Editorial was to highlight the weakness of our local politicians to see it as President Obama and many others including Jamaica sees it respect people for people.

The Charter or Rights is to replace section 3 of the Constitution is is not laws but a raft of
rights and freedoms as stated by categories which in the original 1999 and 2006 Joint Select Cmt reports had discrimination by sexual orientation incuded until it was removed out of fear that gays may ask for marriage rights.
So so callled gay marriage rights is now the "red herring" to push for overlooking this section and gay persons all together.
Don't confuse rights vs laws they are separate things in as far as drafting them.

Its about everyone within their space operating freely without fear or favour and tolerance our politicians are nowhere near this kind of realisation and pander to the hate implied sounds as espoused in your letter without fairly looking at the BIGGER issues involved.

I suggest also you get a copy of the hansard notes or the Joint select cmt report and see what actually transpired.

Music:
No one is trying to stop Buju Banton or any other artist from living or saying their piece but there must be a clear distinction between messages of peace, love etc vs inciting violence, hate and bigotry on any group or individual simply because of a misconception of a lifestyle. Be aware that gays also attend Buju's shows especially in their own backyard of San Fran and of course he with his management used the meeting issue as a public relations stunt as any American pop star would to get mileage, just another day in Entertainment goings.

Interestingly these same dancehall artists who some stoutly defend treat women as sex objects, gang warfare (as in the present Gully Gaza madness between Vybz Kartel and Mavado) and promote death to police informants yet we don't have the same outcry about those from the critics and the religious groups.

Simply put sir, tolerance is they key just as how different church groups, religions and races exist.

Respectfully
Peace

Hate Crime Bill goes into Law in the US .... will Jamaican cowardly politicians learn?

President Obama signed major civil rights legislation on Wednesday, making it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. The new measure expands the the scope of a 1968 law that applies to people attacked because of their race, religion or national origin. The U.S. Justice Department will have expanded authority to prosecute such crimes when local authorities don't.

The provision, called the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is attached to a defense authorization bill. It is named after Matthew Shepard, a gay college student tortured and killed in 1998, and James Byrd Jr., a black man who was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to his death the same year.
The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans.
The measure was a priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade. During the signing ceremony, Obama acknowledged Shepard's mom, Judy, and remembered that he had told her this day would come. He also gave a nod to Kennedy's family. Going forward, Obama promised, people will be protected from violence based on "what they look like, who they love, how they pray or why they are."

Read or watch President Obama's remarks before signing the legislation:
After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who's here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day -- make this day possible. So -- and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.) So, with that, I'm going to sign this piece of legislation.

Read more HERE





Jamaicans politicians need to take a page out of Obama's book in leading from the front with tolerance and inclusion albeit it came out of a tragic loss of a life but at least the corrective measure will seek to guarantee rights for persons despite their orientation yet our leaders and a bigoted Joint Select Committee sought to remove the word "gender" in fear that gays will ask for marriage rights. The tyrannical majority rules, so what about the protection of the minority which is the essence of democracy?

Our cowardly leaders playing to the so called popular view to sure up political capital instead of doing the right thing.

see the post below The ambit of democracy (Gleaner letter 29.10.09) elaborating on the importance of rights to everyone, even the minority.

Great move US and the Obama Administration.

H

The ambit of democracy (Gleaner letter 29.10.09)

The Editor, Sir:

With respect to the letter of Everal Edwards, published October 28, under the title, 'Clearly Ridiculous', I feel compelled to point out the danger inherent in the sentiment he expresses.

The moment a society begins to cater solely to the views of the majority to the clear exclusion of a specific, or all minority groups, then that society is no longer operating within the ambit of democracy.

These undemocratic societies are then perpetually in pursuit of the dynamic status quo as they pander to the common denominator, sacrificing the essence of harmonious inclusion and space for amicable disagreement that defines democracy.

The purpose of law and government is to create a system of harmony all the time protecting the weak from the strong, advancing the welfare of all. Once that philosophy has been compromised, the resulting dysfunctional society must assess itself and try and correct its mistakes or injustice will persist.

Vitriolic rhetoric

The fact that such vitriolic rhetoric is coming from Jamaica, a society built on slavery (including mental slavery) is not entirely surprising but certainly not excusable. In fact, like South Africa, Jamaica should rise and be a beacon of hope for the oppressed in an increasingly hostile world, pointing to the right direction for the future of mankind.

I am, etc.,

BRIAN-PAUL WELSH

brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

Kingston

Tips for breast cancer prevention

Rosalee M. Brown is a registered dietitian/ nutritionist who operates Integrated Nutrition and Health Services.

We are convinced that genetics play a significant role in breast cancer risk but there is also evidence that risk is impacted by factors such as food and nutrition and physical activity. A report published by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund on food, nutrition, physical activity and the prevention of cancer provides some recommendations for cancer prevention based on a meta-analysis of existing research.

The recommendations are:

1. Be as lean as possible. Body fat should be maintained at the lower end of body mass index or BMI for age throughout childhood and adolescence and within the normal range after age 21. Weight gain and increase in waist circumference should be avoided in adulthood.

2. Limit consumption of energy-dense foods. Avoid sugary drinks and consume soft drinks sparingly.

3. Eat mostly foods of plant origin. Eat at least five portions/servings (that is, at least 400 g or 14 oz) of a variety of non-starchy vegetables and fruits every day. Eat relatively unprocessed cereals (grains) and/or pulses (legumes) with every meal. Limit refined starchy foods. People who consume starchy roots or tubers as staples should eat enough non-starchy vegetables, fruits, and pulses (legumes).

4. Limit the intake of red meats and avoid processed meats. People who eat red meat should consume less than 500 g (18 oz) a week and very little of it, if any, should be processed.

5. Limit alcoholic drinks. If alcoholic drinks are consumed, limit consumption to no more than two drinks a day for men, and one drink a day for women.

6. Limit consumption of salts and avoid mouldy cereals and legumes. Avoid salt-preserved, salted or salty foods and preserve foods without using salt. Limit consumption of processed foods with added salt to help control salt intake to less than 6g (2.4g sodium) a day. Do not eat mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes).

7. Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone. Dietary supplements are not recommended for cancer prevention.

8. Aim to breastfeed infants exclusively up to six months.

9. Be physically active every day. Moderate physical activity, equivalent to brisk walking for at least 30 minutes every day is recommended. As fitness improves, aim for 60 minutes or more of moderate activity, or for 30 minutes or more of vigorous physical activity every day. Limit sedentary habits such as watching television.

Hypocracy from the religious bigots ....

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

Charter of Rights Bill 2008 download

AN ACT to Amend the Constitution of Jamaica to provide for a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and for connected matters. DOWLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

Excerpts from the original documents from the Previous Joint Select Committee 2006/8

The Charter's Debate recommenced in October 2009.

MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Government has recognized a need for reform of many aspects of the Constitution in order to meet the needs of post independence Jamaica. To this end, a Constitutional Commission was formed to examine various issues. A Joint Select Committee of the Houses of Parliament was appointed with a mandate to undertake such reform. The Constitutional Commission made recommendations to the Joint Select Committee which in tum presented its final report to Parliament for approval
The then Government decided that pending more comprehensive amendments to the Constitution, it was desirous to give effect to the proposals emanating from the Final Report relating to the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which would constitute a guarantee by the State to preserve and protect those rights and freedoms.

A Bill to that effect was considered by succesive Joint Select Committees of Parliament which recommended various amendments. The report of the latest Committee was tabled but the dissolution of Parliament prevented any further action in relation thereto. The Government has decided to table a new Bill which incorporates the recommendations made by that Joint Select Committee.
The provisions relating to protection from torture or inhuman or degrading punishment restate the existing provisions in the Constitution. It is intended that final determination in that regard will be left as a matter to be determined by the outcome of a free conscience vote of Members of the Houses of Parliament on the question of the retention or abolition of the death penalty.
Consequently, this Bill seeks to amend the Constitution in order to give effect to that decision.
The Bill provides for protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals subject to such measures as are required for state governance in periods of public disaster or emergency or as are regarded as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The protected rights and freedoms include the following(a)
life, liberty and the security of the person;
(b) freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious
and political doctrines;
(c) freedom of expression;
(d) the right to seek, distribute or disseminate to any other person,
information, opinions and ideas through any media;
(e) freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

(f) freedom of movement;
(g) due process of law;
(h) equality before the law;
(i) equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function;
(j) freedom from discrimination, on the ground of race, social class, colour, religion, gender, place of origin or political preference;
(k) protection of property rights;
(1) protection from search of the person, respect for private and family life, privacy of home and of communication;
(m) entitlement of every child
(i) to such measures of protection as are required by the status of a minor or as part of the family, society and the State; and
(ti) who is a citizen to publicly funded education in a public educational institution at the pre-primary and primary levels;
(n) entitlement of a person charged with a criminal offence or detained in pursuance of a provision of any enactment to communicate with and be visited by his spouse, partner or family member, religious; counsellor and a medical practitioner of his choice;
(0) enjoyment of a healthy and productive environment free from threat or injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage;
(P) entitlement of every citizen who is registered to vote, to participate and vote in free and fair elections;
(q) entitlement of every citizen to be granted a passport and not be denied or deprived thereof except by due process of law; and
(r) entitlement of a person who is charged with or detained, in connection with a criminal offence to communicate with and retain an attorney-at-law.
as tabled by BRUCE GOLDING Prime Minister 2008

DOWLOAD ORIGINAL DOCUMENT HERE

Bahati’s bill: A convenient distraction for Uganda's government (any similarities to our situation?)

Source: Pambazuka News (click image for full article) beautiful piece and the distraction criticism can be also levied at our government and opposition parties for using gay marriage as a convenient way to deny rights to GLBT citizens in the present Charter of Rights Bill debate and as a distraction from our other major financial woes with a view to sure up ground support whilst gaining political capital.

The piece reads:
by Solome Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe and Frank Mugisha
As Ugandan MP David Bahati spearheads a campaign around the adoption of the homophobic 'Bahati's bill', Solome Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe and Frank Mugisha call for an unwavering rejection of a piece of legislation entirely against the interests of wider Ugandan society. With strong suspicions of Bahati's financial backing by extreme-right Christian groups in the US, the bill seeks not only to establish draconian punishments for homosexual acts but also to actively encourage Ugandans to snoop on one another indefinitely for the supposed good of the nation. If homophobes like Bahati were really worried about 'protect[ing] the traditional family', Nakaweesi-Kimbugwe and Mugisha argue, they'd concern themselves with tackling the conditions keeping so many Ugandans in poverty, rather than making scapegoats of homosexual people. The authors conclude that with an election approaching in 2011, the momentum behind the bill smacks of a none-too-subtle attempt to divert attention away from Uganda's true issues.

BAHATI’S 'ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL'
On 14 October 2009 the Hon. David Bahati (MP, Ndorwa County West, Kabale) tabled a private-members bill before the Ugandan parliament titled the 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill'. When it was tabled, the Minister for Ethics and Integrity Dr James Nsaba Butoro made a strong statement in support of the bill and for the greater sanction of individuals and organisations supporting homosexuality. The bill is aimed at increasing and expanding penalties for 'homosexual acts' and for all institutions (including NGOs, donors and private companies) who defend the rights of people who engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender. The bill also calls for Uganda to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions which support the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, introduces extradition arrangements for Ugandan citizens who perform 'homosexual acts' abroad, and includes legal penalties for people who fail to report alleged homosexual acts or individuals and institutions that promote homosexuality or same-sex marriage to the authorities. The death penalty is mandated for HIV-positive people who engage in sex with people of the same gender. The tabling of the bill has been accompanied by threats against any Ugandan media organisation that allows LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Ugandans to air their views or publish press statements.

Bahati’s bill is an alarmingly retrogressive piece of legislation, aimed at legalising hatred against a section of the Ugandan citizenry, but also importantly at controlling and censoring dissent and open public debate. In legal terms, the bill would set a precedent for state authorities to control rights to freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of association for state and non-state actors. It would also set a precedent for government censorship of internal workplace and other policies of national and international institutions operating in Uganda.

The bill is clearly a diversion from the serious issues facing Uganda’s policy-makers today in the lead-up to the 2011 elections especially around livelihoods; poverty and the lack of jobs; electoral reforms; lasting solutions to the northern Uganda peace process; political conflict; ethnic tensions and the unresolved land question; high rates of violence against children and against women (perpetrated largely by heterosexual men); and the ongoing impact of HIV/AIDS. It also poses a serious threat to press and academic freedom, human rights activism overall, and indeed to Uganda’s commitment to the values of human rights and democracy upheld by its own constitution and by the regional and international systems to which it belongs.

WESTERN-BACKED HOMOPHOBIA

A common claim put forward by homophobes in Uganda is that Western donors and human rights organisations are encouraging the spread of homosexuality in Uganda. Interestingly, what they never admit to is that fact that their own campaigning and mobilisation against lesbians and gay people is itself funded and supported by actors in the West, more specifically the Christian rightwing in the USA. There is evidence to suggest that support for Bahati’s bill has come from extreme-right Christians in the United States of America who are working through allied churches and parliamentarians in Uganda. In March 2009 the Family Life Network, led by Ugandan Pastor Stephen Langa (affiliated to the Kampala Pentecostal Church), hosted a workshop entitled 'Exposing the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda'. The workshop trainers included members of three American organisations well-known in US Christian rightwing circles:

- Scott Lively, co-founder of the hate group Watchmen on the Walls and author of The Pink Swastika, a pseudo-history book claiming that militant male homosexuals helped mastermind the Nazi holocaust
- Caleb Lee Brundidge, a 'sexual reorientation' coach for the International Healing Foundation, a Christian organisation that aims to 'free' people from 'unwanted same-sex attraction'
- Don Schmierer, a board member for Exodus International, an umbrella body for Christian groups that seek to 'reform' homosexuals using Christian teachings.

Alongside the workshop, the Americans also met with MPs and influential religious actors. The Family Life Network has mobilised through churches across the country to deliver a petition to parliament calling for the introduction of stronger legislation against homosexuality. Bahati’s bill is the result.

It's worth noting that it costs a considerable amount of money, time and processes to table a private-member’s bill, which begs the question of how the MP from Kabale District is financing this process? It has also been common practice for the mushrooming pastors and churches to use homophobic attacks on opponents as a way to discredit each other and sway faithfuls.

Fair Observation by the Gleaner on the Charter of Rights Bill Debate

Golding and Simpson Miller failed to lead their editorial 26.10.09 reads:

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.

What is the church really about? (REPOST from GJW)

UPDATED 25.10.09
Oh well my simplistic view got me in a some time ago with a christian friend of mine on what the church is really about here in Jamaica. I strongly put that some of their pundits spend so much time defending heterosexual-ism and vigorously making sure that homosexuality doesn't see the light of day in the recently debated Sexual Offences and the Charter of Rights Bills with the latter being debated presently.

I thought the church was about winning souls for Christ no matter who that soul is, including gays and lesbians. Instead some of the "intellectuals" within the church exercise their bigoted thoughts openly setting all these preconditions before the "sinner" can even see the church door.

What about come as you are and god loves you?

Most churches dismiss persons once they are found to be gay or lesbian with little or any care, isn't that defeating the purpose of what Christ decreed we as saved persons should do....."go ye into the world and preach the gospel......" not condemn people because they don't fit your Utopian view of the world.

Sad that this is what we have become, one wonders if the church by it's actions of some of who say they are saved are giving more power to the enemy notable atheists and the anti Christ supporters when we behave with some harsh discrimination, during the conversation by the way the young man said that the pastor some Sundays ago of a church he attended said he wanted no offerings from gays. So we can now decide who want offerings from, wow.

Makes me wonder if the church and biblical doctrine is used by some to forward homophobic as well as other discriminatory views maybe that explains the attrition from it's halls and corridors as most young people aren't even interested in going to church these days.

As for using the bible as a beating stick over the heads of "sinners" is just plain wrong to me. Famous among the quotes is Leviticus 20: 13

GOOD NEWS VERSION:
"If a man has sexual relations with another man they have done a disgusting thing and both shall be out to death, They are responsible for their own death"

The book also speaks of incest, having sex with a woman while she is seeing her period or sleeping with animals etc.
I understood these rules to be of the old covenant and they were intended for the ceremonies of ancient Israel as issued to Moses, The main theme of the book is to emphasis holiness of God and the ways in which the people were to worship and live to maintain holiness with God of Israel. I haven't seen anything on lesbianism in it.
I stand corrected though if you know more help me out, I am just adding my two cents but I would have thought we are now under grace not law.

Most of these books of the Bible that do speak to homosexuality never mentioned it as if God himself said it but then again he said love thy neighbour as thyself, judge not and ye shall not be judged. Romans for example was Paul's way of introducing himself to the Romans in Rome his plan was to work among them there and then gather support then move on to Spain. he wrote to explain his understanding of the christian faith and it's practical implications for the lives of Christians. While he covers the rules, conscience and holy living an underlying theme that seems to run through the book is not judging each other, something that the church these days seem to forget.

Lata

H

originally from Gay Jamica Watch

Meeting controversy, Music industry split over Buju's face to face with gays

The Gleaner has put out some articles today October 25, regarding the Buju Banton interactions and possible fall out from the anti murder music campaign.

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

FINALLY! The Church and the DJs agree

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

Buju did the right thing ...

Mel Cooke wrote:
There is a strong possibility that if reports of deejay Buju Banton's meeting with representatives of the gay community in San Francisco, California, on October 13, had not been supported by pictures, there would be those who would refuse to believe that it actually took place.
But, even in this age of 'Photoshop' where pictures can and do lie, it is undeniable that it did take place and the fallout - if any - continues back at home.

Isaiah Laing, head of Supreme Promotions which produces the huge Boxing Day Sting concert annually, on which Buju did a full show in 2006 dipping into his extensive, hit-filled catalogue for about an hour, says, "I doubt there will be any negatives."

Still, Laing says the gay community is using the meeting as a "mockery" and it does not make sense for Buju to talk about it any more. "He should just act without talking," Laing said.

"You have to survive and you survive by singing. It has been a long time he hasn't done anything about them and them still after the youth. Who are they?" Laing demanded, pointing further to the demands that the gay community had placed on Buju.

"Buju was just trying to get them off his back and eat food," Laing assessed. "It is the outer world where they are."

Still, Laing says he respects Buju for having dialogue with members of the gay community, as there is not enough of that between persons in Jamaica who have various inter-personal conflicts. "Maybe if we were doing more of that in Jamaica, we would not have so much murder," Laing said.

But Disc jock Crazy Chris, who plays on KOOL FM, says the fans will rate Buju less because of the meeting.

"You know the stance we take on it as Jamaican people. A no all Jamaican people will be open-minded and say low them thing.

Jamaica Observer "Outs" drag queen irresponsibly

According to the Jamaica Observer a drag queen was the centre of attention in central Jamaica after being caught in a car with a man in a compromising position. The police who took both persons in for questioning didn't realise the drag diva was in fact so. The individual whose photos appears in the article as far as I am concerned is now in danger by virtue two full faced images revealing her identity, the man who was also in the car was not shown.

Here it reads:

A male cross-dresser who police said was caught in a compromising position in a car with another man early Friday morning, created a lot of chatter in May Pen yesterday as news of the incident spread throughout that town.

The police say they noticed the two involved in a dispute in a Toyota Mark II motorcar parked at a lonely spot near a petrol station along Manchester Avenue.

The police took both persons to the May Pen Police Station where it was discovered that the 'woman' was actually a man dressed in drag.

Police say they suspect that the cross-dresser is a prostitute and had sought to sell his wares to the unsuspecting male customer, who was riding a bicycle on Manchester Avenue when he was approached by the prostitute.

The man was reportedly beside himself with rage upon discovering that he was intimately involved with a man and a heated argument developed.

His suspicions were confirmed when the police inspected a driver's licence and voter's ID belonging to the suspected prostitute and discovered that he was in fact a man who hailed from a Gregory Park, St Catherine address.

As news spread like wildfire throughout the town, a large crowd converged on the station to catch a glimpse of the drag queen who was clad in a tight-fitting blouse, jeans shorts, high heeled shoes, loop earrings and a wig.

The cross-dresser sported false eyelashes and neatly shaven eyebrows.

The police say they admonished and discharged both men.

END

My two cents

The Observer however again has shown callousness in this matter by showing a photograph of the individual thus exposing her to all, do they not realise the danger this could pose to her person? Yes, report the story but don't expose the accused in this manner, I am sure a rape victim or any other charged citizen whose life may be at risk if exposed in such a manner the responsible Editors would not and in some cases could not allow their identities to be revealed so openly.

Luckily the incident did not descend into chaos and the police apparently from all reports took control of the situation pretty early despite the news reaching the public outside the precincts of the station.

There are no laws that speak to cross dressing etc but they may have been charged with gross indecency since they were allegedly in a public place as the police indicated in a compromising position.

It has been reported that many outside the station were laughing or saying they couldn't believe what they were saying and how "she" looked good others were scaving in their remarks including some of the officers who were visibly upset as expected and condemned "her" and the male partner with fire and brimstone, the crowd also had some Rastafarians present as well.

It was only recently the police had issued warnings in certain areas especially of outdoor shenanigans and advised the public of the relevant charges that may apply for soliciting and outdoor sexual activity.

H

Miami Commission Chairman Voices Strong Opposition to Performer Buju Banton's Violent Anti-Gay Lyrics

MIAMI - City Commission Chairman Joe Sanchez issued a statement today denouncing the violent anti-gay lyrics of performer Buju Banton, who will appear as part of a reggae show October 31 at the City-owned James L. Knight Center.

“I cannot believe in a time of world economic, poverty and hunger crisis – when we all need to bond together as one human family to uplift our brethren – we have an `artist’ who encourages violent acts against gay people in his venomous lyrics.

Banton’s 1988 song Boom Bye Bye advocates shooting gays in the head and setting them on fire. Several of Banton’s shows in America have been protested by gay activists and some performances have been canceled.

“The First Amendment gives this man the right to spew his hatred from the stage. If we tried to ban him from using a City facility because of his message, we would endanger the very right to free speech that empowers us to speak out against homophobic ‘performers’ and others who ignorantly and viciously attack the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community,” said Sanchez.


“Rather than trying to cancel the show, I think all people who believe in equality should use this as a rallying point to remind us that hatred still exists,” Sanchez said. “I encourage people to answer Banton’s violent and hateful lyrics with a peaceful, civil protest to show that our commitment to fighting hate is stronger than his words of evil.”

SFCN

Ugandan coalition speaks out on Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Here is the statement:

Anti-Homosexuality or Anti-Human Rights Bill?
Statement from the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Hon. Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill which was tabled in Parliament on October 14, 2009, and is currently before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament covers much more than the title alone proclaims. A much better title for this bill would have been the 'Anti Civil Society Bill, the 'Anti Public Health Bill,' or the 'Anti-Constitution Bill.' Perhaps more simply it should be called the Anti Human Rights Bill. As a matter of fact, this bill represents one of the most serious attacks to date on the 1995 Constitution and on the key human rights protections enshrined in the Constitution including:

Article 20: Fundamental rights and freedoms are inherent and not granted by the State
Article 21: Right to Equality and Freedom from discrimination
Article 22: The Right to Life (the death penalty provisions)
Article 27: The Right to Privacy
Article 29: Right to freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association (this includes freedom of speech, Academic freedom and media freedom)
Article 30: Right to Education
Article 32: Affirmative Action in favour of marginalised groups and
Article 36 on the Rights of Minorities

Let us think for a moment of who-quite apart from the homosexuals it claims as its target-this bill puts at risk:

- any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to the authorities: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years;

- any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the authorities within 24 hours: Failure to do so s/he will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= or put away for three years in prison;

- any landlord or landlady who happens to give housing to a suspected homosexual risks seven years of imprisonment;

- any Local Council I - V Chairperson or Executive member who does not denounce somebody accused of same-sex attraction or activity risks imprisonment or a heavy fine;

- any medical doctor who seeks to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS through working with what are known as most at risk populations, risks her or his career;

- all civil society leaders, whether in a Community Based Organisation, NGO, or academic institution; if their organisations seek to have a comprehensive position on sexual and reproductive health, they risk seeing their organisations closed down;

- any human rights activist who seeks to promote an understanding of the indivisibility and inalienability of human rights would be judged to be promoting homosexuals and homosexuality, and be punished accordingly;

- any religious leader who seeks to provide guidance and counselling to people who are unsure of their sexuality, would be regarded as promoting homosexuality and punished accordingly;

- any Member of Parliament or other public figure who is sent a pornographic article, picture or video will become vulnerable to blackmail and witch-hunts;

- any media house that publishes 'pornographic' materials risks losing its certificate of registration and the editor will be liable to seven years in jail;

- any internet café operator who fails to prevent a customer from accessing a pornographic website, or a dating site, could be accused of 'participating in the production, procuring, marketing, broadcasting, disseminating and publishing of pornographic materials for purposes of promoting homosexuality'; their business licence could be revoked and they themselves could land in prison.

- any Person alleged to be a homosexual is at risk of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and, in some circumstances, the DEATH PENALTY.

In short, this bill targets everybody, and involves everybody: it cannot be implemented without making every citizen spy on his or her neighbours. The last time this was done was in the Amin era, where everyone very quickly became an 'enemy of the state'. It amounts to a direct invasion of our homes, and will promote blackmail, false accusations and outright intimidation of certain members of the population. Do Ugandans really want to mimic the practices of the Khartoum regime? Have we already forgotten the sex police of Apartheid South Africa, who smashed their way into people's bedrooms in an attempt to prevent inter-racial sex?

As Civil Society organisations we condemn all predatory sexual acts (hetero or homosexual) that violate the rights of vulnerable sections of our society such as minors and people with disabilities. However, the Bill lumps "aggravated homosexuality" together with sexual acts between consenting adults in order to whip up sentiments of fear and hatred aimed at isolating sexual minorities. By so doing, the state fails in its duty to protect all its citizens without discrimination.

The bill also asserts Extra Territorial jurisdiction. In other words, all of the offences covered by the bill can be applied to a Ugandan citizen or permanent resident who allegedly commits them outside the country. Thus homosexuality and/or its 'promotion' are added to the very short list of offences which fall in the 'political offences' category. It joins treason, misprision of treason, and terrorism as offences subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction. Clearly, this is out of all proportion in relation to the gravity of the act.

On top of these day-to-day considerations about everybody's safety and security, let us consider what this bill will do for civil society organisations in Uganda which seek to have a critical voice and to engage in issues of global concern. One of the objectives of the bill is to prohibit the licensing of organizations which allegedly 'promote homosexuality.' Thus, for example, any organisation which talked about anal sex as part of a campaign of HIV prevention can be affected. Had this bill been in place earlier this year, no Ugandan could have participated in the World AIDS meeting held in Mexico to discuss HIV prevention.

And what about our standing in the eyes of the world? The Bill calls for Uganda to nullify any international treaties, protocols, declarations and conventions which are believed to be 'contradictory to the spirit and provisions' of the bill. In reality, this would involve Uganda withdrawing from:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its protocols;
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

We note that Uganda is current Chair of the UN Security Council which operates with the UN Charter and UDHR as guiding principles. It is also current Chair of the Commonwealth and a signatory to the African Union's Constitutive Act which has as its premise the promotion and respect of human rights. In 2009 and 2010 it is hosting AU Summits. What will happen to Uganda's hard-won role on the global stage if it nullifies its international and regional humanrights commitments? Uganda cannot wish away core human rights principles of dignity, equality and non-discrimination, and all Ugandans will pay a heavy price if this bill is enacted.

We will have bargained away our hard-earned rights and freedoms as well as our right to challenge the State and hold it accountable for the protection of these rights. In sum, the Bahati Bill is profoundly unconstitutional. It is a major stumbling block to the development of a vibrant human rights movement in Uganda, and a serious threat to Uganda's developing democratic status. If passed, this law would not only prove difficult to implement, it would also consume resources and attention which would be better directed at more pressing issues of human rights abuse, corruption, electoral reform, domestic relations and freedom of the press.

Regardless of our personal moral beliefs and values, we the undersigned organisations are standing up in defence of Democracy, our Constitution and its enshrined principles of human dignity, equality, freedom and justice for all.

Kampala, 23 October 2009

African Women's Development Fund (AWDF)
Akina Mama wa Afrika (AMwA)
Advocates for Public International Law in Uganda (APILU)
Center for Land Economy and Rights of Women (CLEAR-Uganda)
Centre for Women in Governance (CEWIGO)
Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations (DENIVA)
East & Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project
Uganda Association of Women Lawyers (FIDA-U)
Forum for Women in Democracy (FOWODE)
Human Rights Awareness & Promotion Forum
Human Rights & Peace Centre (HURIPEC), Faculty of Law, Makerere University
Integrity Uganda
International Refugee Rights Initiative
Mentoring and Empowerment Programme for Young Women (MEMPROW)
MIFUMI Project
National Association of Women's Organisations in Uganda (NAWOU)
National Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (NACWOLA)
Refugee Law Project (RLP), Faculty of Law, Makerere University
National Guidance & Empowerment Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (NGEN+)
Spectrum Uganda
Uganda Feminist Forum
• Women's Organisation & Network for Human Rights Advocacy (WONETHA)

For further information please contact the coalition at kalendenator@gmail.com

Up North - Anderson Cooper discourse on Hate crime bill

Please bear in mind that President does not support gay marriages but he says he would not reverse states that have already passed or allowed marriage rights to same sex couples.

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in the US

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

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Introduced in Senate) (bench photo)

S 909 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 909
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 28, 2009
Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--

(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and

(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;

(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

`(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

`(b) Certification Requirement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that--

`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

`(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

`(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

`(c) Definitions- In this section--

`(1) the term `bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

`(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

`(3) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

`(4) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`249. Hate crime acts.'.

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.

(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles' after `data acquired under this section'.

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Buju's damage already done (Gleaner letter 23.10.09)

The Editor, Sir:
I noted with interest your Gleaner Online poll which shows that 88 per cent of persons polled think that gay activists have gone overboard in their campaign against Buju Banton. Not only do I disagree with the majority, I think we could all learn something from the gay community.

Discrimination against minorities remains one of the USA's biggest social issues. The gay community in the USA has every right to take steps to ensure that someone who supports discrimination against gays has a difficult time in gaining popularity in their country. Jamaicans would probably put up stronger opposition if an openly gay artiste had the nerve to schedule concerts here in Jamaica, regardless of the content of the music.

'Informer fi dead' culture

What I don't understand is why, in a country like Jamaica where violent crime is the biggest social issue, we don't demand that artistes like Buju do more to destroy the 'informer fi dead' culture that they helped to create. Lest we forget, at the same time that Buju was singing Boom Bye Bye, he also proclaimed that "gunshot fi buss up inna informer head". It's not enough for Buju to clean up his lyrics now that he's famous. The damage has already been done. Buju's example is seen in the Which Dudus song now covering the airwaves that warns of Madden's Funeral Home being filled if Dudus is extradited.

Perhaps Buju is afraid to be part of the minority of Jamaican artistes who support cooperation with 'Babylon'. Maybe our memories are too short to sustain public and economic pressure on social issues such as this. While we may not agree with the views of the gay activists, imagine how much better our own communities would be if we had the courage and resilience to go overboard for what we believe to be right.

I am, etc.,

GAVIN GOFFE
ggoffe@gmail.com
Kingston

GLEANER EDITORIAL - The PNP's grasp at decency

She did so in an opaque and convoluted fashion, but Portia Simpson Miller, the Opposition leader, eventually exerted her authority and caused her People's National Party (PNP) to exercise good sense.

So, the debate on the Charter of Rights is proceeding, with an unequivocal pledge this week from Mrs Simpson Miller that "the Opposition will support this bill".

That, in the final analysis, is good enough for us, even if we did not quite grasp the argument and logic by which she arrived at this position. But, as they say, all's well that ends well.

We consider Mrs Simpson Miller's position important for another, more fundamental reason. It is a declaration that political action doesn't have to be founded only in opportunism, and that what is important in the end is doing what is right.

And, by any measure, the Charter of Rights is right. It is an attempt to codify and enumerate in relatively simple language the rights and freedoms that are constitutionally guaranteed to the Jamaican citizen, and to narrow the capacity of the state to abrogate those rights.

17 years of talking

It has taken 17 years of talking and debate, mostly between the political classes and the intellectual elite, to reach this stage of having the charter debated by the legislature. When the bill is passed - it requires the support of two-thirds of the members of Parliament - it will require another three months, as is the case with all amendments to entrenched provisions of the Constitution, before it becomes law. All of this is after having to wait three months after the bill is laid before it can be debated.

Yet, for something that the PNP considered important to advancing the rights of the Jamaican people, it was willing to play fast to gain a puny political advantage. The party's spokesman on justice, Mr A.J. Nicholson, sought to link support for the bill to another constitutional amendment to extend the five-year window, imposed by the Privy Council, for the execution of someone convicted of a capital crime before the verdict becomes cruel and inhuman punishment. Then there was that cynical and opportunistic echo in the House by Mr Robert Pickersgill, the party's chairman, that threatened to derail things.

Expecting fulfilment

The party has now retreated, accepting, Mrs Simpson Miller suggested, that the prime minister will fulfil his undertaking at the time when Parliament voted to retain capital punishment, to find a mechanism to deal with the practical problems imposed by the five-year deadline for executions imposed by the law lords. This important element of the business can proceed, and not be subject to tawdry barter.

The cynics might claim otherwise, but we prefer to believe that Mrs Simpson Miller has come to recognise that leadership is not only about petty political calculations, or giving your opponent a bloody nose.

It, first, ought to be, especially for those who would assume the management of the State and wield great authority over people's lives, about promoting the interest of those they pledge to serve.

Having recovered from a sorry lapse and a display of poor judgement, Mrs Simpson Miller and her party have hopefully learned a salient lesson.

Still more lgbt protest on Buju's tour

scenes captured by the Dallas Observer

Scenes from protest action in Palm Beach on Tuesday night, October 13, 2009

also see Buju Banton's show at Trincity/Palm Beach Club faces opposition from GJW

and full coverage from The Dallas Obsever

Buju and the "Faggot" word issue:

...........The use of the derogatory term, however, was harder to explain. The group outside of the club, mostly from the Caribbean, admitted that Jamaica was more or less a "homophobic island."
In fact, during a conversation with the evening's Disc Jockey, the word came up again. When asked why he chose to use the term, the man seemed confused.

"So, they are not?" said the DJ. "Oh, I didn't know faggot was bad ... In Jamaica it's norm. Here, I didn't know it's offensive to them."

And this is the same explanation Morgan gave for his touring partner Banton.

"[Banton] had a meeting with his manager and some other people and he was educated about the word," said Morgan. "He said, 'I didn't know it offended them.'"

Who is Buju fooling???

H

PNP 2006, No plans to Legalise Same Sex Union (FLASHBACK)

Published originally February 17, 2009, Ministry of Justice (formerly National Security & Justice) under the People's National Party Administration. This was a statement by the then Attorney General signed below after hearing the submissions from the right winged christian legal group, Lawyer's Christian Fellowship who among other things contested the sexual orientation sections of the proposed bill, this was where the gay marriage discussion was thrown in the mix and vigorously debated and opposed by the group.


see more on the Joint select committees' reports from GJW:
The Joint Select Cmt 2006 on The Charter of Rights - Consenting Adults (Male)

The Joint Select Cmt 2006 on The Charter of Rights - Freedom From Discrimination

Not Much has changed since eh....Charter of Rights Bill Deliberations from here

No plans to Legalise Same Sex Unions (2006 Official Statement - Attorney General)

"There is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government or the Joint Select Committee of Parliament that any door should be opened by provisions in the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or otherwise, to decriminalise homosexuality or to pave the way for same-sex marriages to be accepted as lawful in Jamaica.

In seeking to make submissions to the Joint Select Committee at this eleventh hour, the church representatives and the group of lawyers who complain about certain provisions of the Charter, concerning the protection of the right to privacy, need to be reminded of the history and purport of those provisions as they were developed.

First, those provisions are to the same effect as those that are contained in the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission of the early 1990s, under the chairmanship of Dr. Lloyd Barnett, in their draft Bill on the Charter

Second, the Joint Select Committee that sat for a long time to consider the Charter provisions, in the late 1990s, heard presentations from groups who take a completely opposite view to that taken by the church representatives and group of lawyers. Those entities, including J-FLAG, even though approaching the matter from the base of a different provision in the Bill, were of the view that the Charter should move away from the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission on this score and that there should be no discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

The Joint Select Committee did not agree that such a recommendation should be made to Parliament since it saw such a measure as opening the door to the legalisation, or at least, the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Third, the Parliamentary Opposition tabled a Charter of Rights Bill in the name of its former leader, in which the provisions of which the church representatives and group of lawyers now complain are in the same terms as those recommended by the Constitutional Commission that was chaired by Dr. Barnett.

The church representatives and group of lawyers ought to be mindful of the following:

• It is not possible to have a policeman placed in every bedroom in Jamaica. So that, within the confines of a person’s home, this particular mischief cannot be prevented or punished except, of course, someone complains.

• Every provision in a law or a constitution is subject to interpretation by judges. Interpretation of laws, however narrowly or broadly drafted, is always coloured by the experience, culture and prevailing circumstances by which the interpreter is guided in coming to a conclusion. That is one of the reasons why the final interpreter of a country’s laws and constitutional provisions should be exposed to and be keenly aware of the socio-cultural imperatives that must guide his decision."

Senator A.J. Nicholson, Q.C.
Attorney General & Minister of Justice

United Nations Day is October 24th

October 16 - 24, 2009

The Millennium Development Goals

In September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets - with a deadline of 2015 - that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals. 2007 marks the midpoint in measuring progress toward achieving these goals by 2015 and you can view the 2007 Report at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007.pdf

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by reducing by half the number of people living on less than $1 a day and reducing by half the number of people who suffer from hunger;

Achieve universal primary education by ensuring that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling;

Promote gender equality and empower women by eliminating gender disparities at all levels of education;

Reduce child mortality by reducing by two-thirds the mortality rate of children under five;
Improve maternal health by reducing by three-quarters the maternal mortality ratio and achieving universal access to reproductive health;

Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases by halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, achieving universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all who need it, and halting and beginning to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases;

Ensure environmental sustainability by integrating principles of sustainable development, reducing by half the number of people living without sustainable access to clean drinking water, and improving the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers; and

Develop a global partnership for development by developing further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory, and includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction— nationally and internationally.

'Respect our views' - Simpson Miller calls for understanding from international community

Edmond Campbell

OPPOSITION LEADER Portia Simpson Miller yesterday urged Jamaica's international partners to respect the majority views of Jamaicans on issues such as the death penalty and sexual preferences.

Making her contribution to the debate on the Charter of Rights Bill in Gordon House, Simpson Miller argued that on such highly sensitive matters the views of the majority must be taken into consideration.

She said several committees on the Charter of Rights Bill which received submissions from members of the public had agreed that a provision to restrict marriage and common-law relationships to one man and one woman should be final.

The Opposition leader wants Jamaica's overseas partners to understand the country's position, noting that a departure from this consensus could lead to deep disagreement among citizens and the authorities, leading to chaos within the State.

Pleased with ccj decision

Simpson Miller also said she was pleased with a recent decision by Prime Minister Bruce Golding to review his administration's earlier position on the Caribbean Court of Justice as the country's final court of appeal.

"That is what we were asking for, that the move to put the legislative foundation in place for the Charter of Rights and the Caribbean Court of Justice should be undertaken at one and the same time," she said.

And the Opposition leader also hailed two former prime ministers for their work in advancing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Bill, which is now being contemplated for passage early next year.

"We are dedicating this exercise to former prime ministers, The Most Hon P.J. Patterson and The Most Hon Edward Seaga, for their extraordinary contribution to this process in which we are engaged, and in which the end is in sight for this Parliament, to give its stamp of approval," said Simpson Miller.

Both former prime ministers had expressed the desire to have the charter debated and passed before they retired from representational politics.

The Butch Femme dynamic ........

Butch identified women are certainly more visible in Jamaica these days and as I hinted in a post before many are accepted as "one of the guys" in our male dominated social scenes. Jamaican men while homophobic are homo social in their get-togethers so butch identified women especially those who smoke weed and do the "gangsta thing" are looked upon as one of the guys in as far as that section of the social strata and integrate fairly well in some instances. Many judge hip hanging male jeans and clothes with corn rowed hair and are revered in some instances due to their connections in some quarters.
There are persons who say they feel intimidated to a certain extent by the presence that butch women project in public, their in charge, strong and no nonsense aura that they have about them.

Our society in general is still not accepting of same sex couples who display the heterosexual dynamics of a man and a woman in public and of homosexual public displays of affection in general.

Lesbians however have been able to live it down in a sense over the years they are not targeted as much as gay men in the murder music by dancehall acts and the rates of homophobic violence were far lower until late 2007 where there has been an slow and steady increase from beatings, illegal and forced evictions, armed assaults and corrective rape type crimes.

Butch identified women in particular have seen their lives despite the acceptance in male circles threatened in some way as well. Of note there was a butch lesbian earlier this year who was attacked by men in her area as described by her when they the attackers, 5 men could not "manage" her as in to overpower her they encircled her and decided to treat her as a man by beating her as in many inner city communities whenever thugs or gangstas run afoul they are punished by beatings by other men in the community as an example to everyone else. As in her case her lesbianism and or infringing on the male roles in the community was the supposed reason for her punishment.

Taboos and patterns

The taboos in the lesbian community still exist though, two butch lesbians do not date as that would not be accepted or may be frowned upon by other lesbians seeing this occur it may be done privately without the other members of the clique or group knowing.
Most lesbian relationship tend to pattern the heterosexual dynamic that of a dominant and a passive partner as there not many long term lesbian relationships that display femme femme or non butch dynamics or softer women being together to draw on as examples.

There some lesbian couples who in order to avoid the glares and remarks present publicly as a heterosexual couple of course that's those butches who are very masculine and can carry off the aesthetics well. This has been noticeable in clubs across town as lesbians by virtue of their status of their higher level tolerance in Jamaica they socialise in open public spaces. This however was threatened for a while when a shooting incident at one of these clubs in 2008 placed on damper on the network and many ladies kept a low profile until the smoke cleared. The particular butch apparently was upset that she was hit on by a man who hurled lesbophobic remarks and threats and then physically encroached on her person so she allegedly took matters in her own hands. It was also alleged that signs were placed at the gate of the club for several weeks instructing no lesbians were allowed to enter after the incident. The gunshot victim however survived the incident and I gather the ladies have slowly returned to patronise the club with new security measures put in place by the management.

Butch women in Jamaica have been visible on the landscape since I was a child and do not get the kind of cynicism and stigma as opposed to effeminate men who run the risk of attacked and beaten if they "show themselves" in public. In the gay setting in socialization there is a clear butch femme dynamic, during parties certain dance songs attract femme who dance together sometimes and are more jovial the butches however tend to be more reserved and hang together in some instances and dance to gangsta type songs that are more mechanical and masculine in nature.

Role play

In relationships generally where there is a butch and femme involved the roles are similar to the heterosexual dynamic, the dominant partner takes care of the financial responsibilities in most instances although there have been equally shared responsibilities as well in some unions to those women I managed to speak to on the issue.

Androgynous women are not very popular in the Jamaican context just the clearly defined femme and butch roles or "high femme" images that are more visible, there are some femmes however who do not want to be labelled as femme as it presents them as weak, helpless or too soft.

More on these dynamics to come.

H