First domestic challenge to Jamaica's anti-sodomy law

Feb 10, 2013 Full story: www.caribbeannewsnow.com 63

In 2011, Jamaica’s Parliament unanimously approved a new Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which, for the first time, explicitly guarantees the right to privacy.

However, the Charter also appears to preserve the 1864 British colonially imposed anti-sodomy law. Under this law, intimacy between two adult men in the privacy of their bedrooms can land them in prison for up to 10 years at hard labour. This creates an obvious contradiction: it is arguable that under the new Constitution it is now impossible to enforce the anti-sodomy law without breaching the new right to privacy.

Read more
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Feb 10, 2013
An island of dred and locks, it seems.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#2 Feb 11, 2013
From what I hear Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place and tourists are advised to NOT leave their hotels alone. I think there are plenty enough problems in that troubled place already for them to be worried about what goes on in someone's private home.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#3 Feb 11, 2013
Curteese wrote:
From what I hear Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place and tourists are advised to NOT leave their hotels alone. I think there are plenty enough problems in that troubled place already for them to be worried about what goes on in someone's private home.
Funny how many ignorant people form opinions about things, based on what they HEAR from other sources...Isn't that how issues like this come about in the FIRST PLACE, Curt?

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#4 Feb 11, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how many ignorant people form opinions about things, based on what they HEAR from other sources...Isn't that how issues like this come about in the FIRST PLACE, Curt?
Um, I read about it in The "LA Times" and "The New York Times" and any number of Conde Nast travel magazines. My travel agent said the same thing. if the two most respected newspapers in the country are NOT enough for you, what else?

If YOU love Jamaica so much, why not go wander the streets at night and see how well you are treated. Wear your good watch and carry a good camera and lots of money. I WISH you would.
Happy Anniversary 1913

Dalton, MA

#5 Feb 11, 2013
Ya mon, say no to buggery and yes to Red Spripe.
Good chit mon, good chit.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#6 Feb 11, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Um, I read about it in The "LA Times" and "The New York Times" and any number of Conde Nast travel magazines. My travel agent said the same thing. if the two most respected newspapers in the country are NOT enough for you, what else?
If YOU love Jamaica so much, why not go wander the streets at night and see how well you are treated. Wear your good watch and carry a good camera and lots of money. I WISH you would.
I do ALL THE TIME...you must have forgotten about me...I AM Jamaican, remember Curt?

You only set out to believe what you WANT to believe, Curt...didn't New York Times and LA Times also say that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I'm sure that your travel agent read these articles, and BELIEVED the same propaganda that was placed in these papers.

Makes me wonder...how many Americans close to him actually died in that futile search for WMD in Iraq? Maybe if you had a friend that was either maimed or killed in Iraq, over the lies spread in the media, you would not be so QUICK to believe EVERYTHING you read in papers like the LA Times and The New York Times...oh! Hold on now! LOL!

Isn't there articles coming out of America already that have negatively portray LGBT Americans in America? Aren't there groups that have a negative outlook on LGBT Americans in America, and seek to discredit LGBT Americans through credible media sources? Now, if I see articles like these, that seek to attack LGBT Americans, through what I would consider credible sources, does that mean that I should AUTOMATICALLY adopt these attacks against LGBT Americans as veritable, Curt?

Just something for you to think about, while you are thinking in the back of your head that I'm a typical homophobic Jamaican...until then, Curtsy boy!

(:
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#7 Feb 11, 2013
Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:
Ya mon, say no to buggery and yes to Red Spripe.
Good chit mon, good chit.
Don't you mean 'Red Stripe', kid?

No to buggery, as long as it is NOT LEGALLY CONSENTED TO by all parties involved in the act. THIS is how the law CURRENTLY works in Jamaica, as well as many other prominent countries, like America, Canada, England, Germany, Australia...need I go on?

;)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Feb 11, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
Don't you mean 'Red Stripe', kid?
No to buggery, as long as it is NOT LEGALLY CONSENTED TO by all parties involved in the act. THIS is how the law CURRENTLY works in Jamaica, as well as many other prominent countries, like America, Canada, England, Germany, Australia...need I go on?
;)
You must be unaware how the Offenses Against Persons Act CURRENTLY reads on the subject:

Section 76. Unnatural crime. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery ... shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.

Section 77. Attempt. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.

Section 79. Outrages on decency. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.

Here it is the Offense Against Persons Act itself that is an offense against persons. Thank you legacies of British colonialism and Victorian era prudery. It needs to go, period.
sdrfgsdfbzdb

Dalton, MA

#9 Feb 11, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you mean 'Red Stripe', kid?
No to buggery, as long as it is NOT LEGALLY CONSENTED TO by all parties involved in the act. THIS is how the law CURRENTLY works in Jamaica, as well as many other prominent countries, like America, Canada, England, Germany, Australia...need I go on?
;)
Oh gosh gee another spelling expert on topix pointing out the petty mistakes of others. Thanks but no thanks Mr perfect.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#10 Feb 11, 2013
sdrfgsdfbzdb wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh gosh gee another spelling expert on topix pointing out the petty mistakes of others. Thanks but no thanks Mr perfect.
I believe that getting your facts 'straight' on a subject is pretty important, even where it relates to the rights of Jamaicans, INCLUDING LGBT Jamaicans! If you think that LGBT rights for Jamaicans in Jamaica is petty, then that's your business...hope you don't carry your pettiness down to Jamaica though, sdrfgsdfbzdb!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#11 Feb 11, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
I do ALL THE TIME...you must have forgotten about me...I AM Jamaican, remember Curt?
You only set out to believe what you WANT to believe, Curt...didn't New York Times and LA Times also say that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I'm sure that your travel agent read these articles, and BELIEVED the same propaganda that was placed in these papers.
Makes me wonder...how many Americans close to him actually died in that futile search for WMD in Iraq? Maybe if you had a friend that was either maimed or killed in Iraq, over the lies spread in the media, you would not be so QUICK to believe EVERYTHING you read in papers like the LA Times and The New York Times...oh! Hold on now! LOL!
Isn't there articles coming out of America already that have negatively portray LGBT Americans in America? Aren't there groups that have a negative outlook on LGBT Americans in America, and seek to discredit LGBT Americans through credible media sources? Now, if I see articles like these, that seek to attack LGBT Americans, through what I would consider credible sources, does that mean that I should AUTOMATICALLY adopt these attacks against LGBT Americans as veritable, Curt?
Just something for you to think about, while you are thinking in the back of your head that I'm a typical homophobic Jamaican...until then, Curtsy boy!
(:
Who said you were? I never said one word about you.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#12 Feb 11, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You must be unaware how the Offenses Against Persons Act CURRENTLY reads on the subject:
Section 76. Unnatural crime. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery ... shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.
Section 77. Attempt. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.
Section 79. Outrages on decency. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
Here it is the Offense Against Persons Act itself that is an offense against persons. Thank you legacies of British colonialism and Victorian era prudery. It needs to go, period.
Rick...GOOD of you to show up to the conversation, boy! Let's get some things CLEAR here. Ready? Here goes...

Where Section 76 and Section 77 is concerned, this is NOT a law that is SUPPOSED to be used to discriminate against CONSENTING LGBT OR HETEROSEXUAL PARTNERS! And YES...I DID say HETEROSEXUAL partners, as some heterosexual partners engage in CONSENSUAL acts of buggery. Did you forget that Rick, or are you simply singling out heterosexuals, to make your argument on behalf of LGBT Jamaicans, and LGBT tourists credible? I will give you some time to answer THAT question, okay muffin?

Now...where Section 79 is concerned, it is a law that, when I have looked upon the wording of it recently, actually comes across as specific, which I don't really see any problem with it INITIALLY, though it DOES lead enforcement officers to DISCRIMINATE against gay Jamaicans, and though police harassment is highly unlikely to find consenting gay Jamaicans thrown in prison for an extended period of time for simple displays of affection [something that is usually avoided by ALL Jamaicans for THE MOST PART, even by heterosexual Jamaicans...but you know this, because you are a frequent visitor to Jamaica, right Ricky boy? ;)], it is a form of discrimination that should not be meted against gay Jamaicans, PERIOD! There are other laws (written and unwritten) which seek to limit public displays of affection between ALL persons in Jamaica, and nobody, trust me, NOBODY wants to find themselves in lock-up for lewd acts in Jamaica, and this does happen more often than not, so it isn't common to see ANY Jamaicans engaging in public displays of affection. This isn't limited to simply gay Jamaicans, Rick, though HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO JAMAICA BEFORE, right kid?

I don't agree with laws that discriminate against anyone anywhere, contrary to what you may believe about me, Rick. Section 79 can be viewed as quite discriminatory against gays IF overzealous enforcement officers determine that tame public displays of affection (such as holding hands or hugging, for examples) are criminal acts that warrant their arrest!

Now, where it comes to Section 76 and 77, I would say that those acts are as criminal as Sections 3, 4, 6, 8-23, and the others in the link below. Now, the reason I say this, is because in order for there to be a prosecutable crime, there either has to be A COMPLAINANT, or a person that is under the age of consent. I'm hard pressed to see ANY case from gay rights activists groups that make mention of consenting LGBT citizens winding up in prison for buggery, Rick...maybe you got an example?

http://www.fosigrid.org/caribbean/jamaica
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#13 Feb 12, 2013
http://www.fosigrid.org/caribbean/jamaica

Here's something else to contemplate when you are reading my above comment, and looking at the link above, Rick...why is it that sexual crimes like buggery and sodomy only garner maximum times of incarceration of 10 years in prison, while the crime of rape carries a minimum sentence of 15 YEARS, Rick? Seems like there is favouritism dished out to criminals convicted of buggery and sodomy, Rick...so what stops these criminals from attacking other innocent Jamaicans, and armed with this knowledge, opting from spending a lifetime in jail (the maximum offence that one can find themselves doing, in terms of rape), decides that they are going to bugger their victims, Rick, and only get 10 years in prison? Do you think THAT is fair, Rick?

I do believe that the laws of buggery and sodomy should be blended in with the laws of rape, and that the punishments for EACH of these crimes be the same, where it comes to these acts being meted out against NON-CONSENTING adults, or against persons that aren't legally able to consent to such acts. Removing acts of buggery and sodomy from the criminal code of jamaica would be irresponsible and dangerous, wouldn't you agree, Rick?

BEFORE you answer that question, Rick...have you looked to see what the laws on buggery and sodomy are in YOUR nation, kid? I do believe that laws in America in relation to buggery and sodomy are under the umbrella of rape and sexual assault there, correct?

This is all that I'm saying should be done in Jamaica...not for sodomy and buggery to be completely EXPELLED from the Jamaican law books, but for them to be placed in context of a crime, where it comes to NON-CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy and buggery, and placing these non-consensual acts of buggery, sodomy, rape and other forms of sexual assault under the same heading, with all garnering the same penalty.

Do you find that as unacceptable, Rick? I hope not...

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You must be unaware how the Offenses Against Persons Act CURRENTLY reads on the subject:
Section 76. Unnatural crime. Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery ... shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding ten years.
Section 77. Attempt. Whosoever shall attempt to commit the said abominable crime, or shall be guilty of any assault with intent to commit the same, or of any indecent assault upon any male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding seven years, with or without hard labour.
Section 79. Outrages on decency. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
Here it is the Offense Against Persons Act itself that is an offense against persons. Thank you legacies of British colonialism and Victorian era prudery. It needs to go, period.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#14 Feb 12, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Who said you were? I never said one word about you.
Yet you are so QUICK to make snap judgement against Jamaica, right...based on what you HEARD, correct Curt? That is what I'm trying to highlight in your comment, Curt...just remember, the sources that claim that Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place aren't saying that Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place, because Jamaica allow foreigners on their island...

No need to try to insult my intelligence with your belief that Jamaica is a horrible place, in your mind, while not attributing that what is horrible about Jamaica is the Jamaicans that live in Jamaica, Curteese...maybe you have not been able to see the vast transformation in regards to tolerance AND ACCEPTANCE of LGBT citizens in Jamaica, so if you are only getting part of the story, where it comes to J-FLAG reporting that there are atrocities being committed against LGBT citizens, then I guess you aren't witness to scores of LGBT AND heterosexual Jamaicans standing side by side in 'freaky clubs', where LGBT Jamaicans are having sex on stage, or where there are LGBT Jamaicans committing violent acts against other LGBT Jamaicans, or where LGBT Jamaicans are committing violent acts against heterosexual Jamaicans, as well as committing acts of vandalism against buildings like J-FLAG, the organization that is out to help LGBT citizens in Jamaica...

But if I left my post off on THAT point, it also would be an incomplete picture now, wouldn't it, Curteese? The issues surrounding LGBT citizens in Jamaica is a LOT MORE COMPLICATED than just saying that LGBT citizens in Jamaica don't have any rights in Jamaica, are frequently persecuted, and jailed for long, indefinite amounts of time...as those statements are simply exaggerated or outright false, Curteese.

There are problems in Jamaica, Curt, and I have no problem admitting that, though the atmosphere that is being displayed about Jamaica is over-exaggerated in most instances, and that is not fair about Jamaica, when there is the SAME level of homophobia being unleashed in many developed nations on this planet (America, Canada, England, etc.), and in various other countries, the level of homophobia is GREATER than it is in Jamaica!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Feb 12, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
Rick...GOOD of you to show up to the conversation, boy! Let's get some things CLEAR here. Ready? Here goes...
Where Section 76 and Section 77 is concerned, this is NOT a law that is SUPPOSED to be used to discriminate against CONSENTING LGBT OR HETEROSEXUAL PARTNERS!
A lot of things are not "SUPPOSED to be used to discriminate against", folk dear, but as long as the law is written to where it can be used by those with the power to do so, to discriminate, there will be those who will. It needs to be changed or struck down by the Courts to make sure that it CAN'T be used to discriminate, not just cross our fingers and hope no one uses the kind of power at their disposal.
Blacktigershark wrote:
And YES...I DID say HETEROSEXUAL partners, as some heterosexual partners engage in CONSENSUAL acts of buggery. Did you forget that Rick, or are you simply singling out heterosexuals, to make your argument on behalf of LGBT Jamaicans, and LGBT tourists credible? I will give you some time to answer THAT question, okay muffin?
The laws against consensual "buggery" (sodomy/unnatural acts) in this country were written to prohibit said acts among the heterosexual set too, but the history of prosecutions under said laws shows that when it came to consensual "buggery", they were all but exclusively homosexual in nature. Look into the history of its actual not theoretical use back in Jamaica and tell me that it hasn't always been used as a threat against homosexuals and rarely if ever used against heterosexual consensual acts.
Blacktigershark wrote:
Now...where Section 79 is concerned, it is a law that, when I have looked upon the wording of it recently, actually comes across as specific, which I don't really see any problem with it INITIALLY, though it DOES lead enforcement officers to DISCRIMINATE against gay Jamaicans, and though police harassment is highly unlikely to find consenting gay Jamaicans thrown in prison for an extended period of time for simple displays of affection [something that is usually avoided by ALL Jamaicans for THE MOST PART, even by heterosexual Jamaicans...but you know this, because you are a frequent visitor to Jamaica, right Ricky boy? ;)]
You don't see a problem and then you go on to tell me all about a series of seriously ugly problems that you can explain in great detail but still not see it as problems. Wow. Look at what you told me that this particular provision has actually led to, legal discrimination, official harassment and pretty f*cking arbitrary imprisonment (but at least they won't be there long if all they did was commit an act of public affection). But you don't see that as being a problem.

Never been to Jamaica, but have known and worked with Jamaicans over the years and have actually been in the area of Jamaica quite a few times. Nobody sees as it as a great travel destination for gay folk and never has.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#16 Feb 12, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
, it is a form of discrimination that should not be meted against gay Jamaicans, PERIOD!
But it is and has and will continue to be, because that is the prevailing opinion and the law is written so they can discriminate as much as they want to.
Blacktigershark wrote:
There are other laws (written and unwritten) which seek to limit public displays of affection between ALL persons in Jamaica, and nobody, trust me, NOBODY wants to find themselves in lock-up for lewd acts in Jamaica, and this does happen more often than not, so it isn't common to see ANY Jamaicans engaging in public displays of affection. This isn't limited to simply gay Jamaicans, Rick, though HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO JAMAICA BEFORE, right kid?
Again, no haven't been to Jamaica and you sure aren't selling me on wanting to, especially posting from Canada as you are. That aside, while there may be laws against certain acts of public affection for all and societal disapproval of even the heterosexual variety, but we both know that unless a man and a woman were f*cking in the streets, they wouldn't be met with more than being told to take it somewhere else, not someone calling the police on them or if the police were to happen by, nothing more than a polite warning, but if two men were to even hold hands in public for a moment, it would likely be met with harassment and abuse of both the unofficial and official variety.
Blacktigershark wrote:
I don't agree with laws that discriminate against anyone anywhere, contrary to what you may believe about me, Rick. Section 79 can be viewed as quite discriminatory against gays IF overzealous enforcement officers determine that tame public displays of affection (such as holding hands or hugging, for examples) are criminal acts that warrant their arrest!
If that were truly what you believe you would be calling for its repeal not trying to rationalize it. As long as the law allows for discrimination and abuse, it will be used for discrimination and abuse and that has to change, these weapons need to be taken away from those all too happy to use them.
Blacktigershark wrote:
Now, where it comes to Section 76 and 77, I would say that those acts are as criminal as Sections 3, 4, 6, 8-23, and the others in the link below. Now, the reason I say this, is because in order for there to be a prosecutable crime, there either has to be A COMPLAINANT, or a person that is under the age of consent. I'm hard pressed to see ANY case from gay rights activists groups that make mention of consenting LGBT citizens winding up in prison for buggery, Rick...maybe you got an example?
http://www.fosigrid.org/caribbean/jamaica
The law is not written merely so that it might only be used against non-consensual or under aged acts, but it applies to consensual acts as well and the "complainant" need not be a party to the act, merely know that it is happening. The law has to be changed, it really is that simple.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17 Feb 12, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
Here's something else to contemplate when you are reading my above comment, and looking at the link above, Rick...why is it that sexual crimes like buggery and sodomy only garner maximum times of incarceration of 10 years in prison, while the crime of rape carries a minimum sentence of 15 YEARS, Rick? Seems like there is favouritism dished out to criminals convicted of buggery and sodomy, Rick...so what stops these criminals from attacking other innocent Jamaicans, and armed with this knowledge, opting from spending a lifetime in jail (the maximum offence that one can find themselves doing, in terms of rape), decides that they are going to bugger their victims, Rick, and only get 10 years in prison? Do you think THAT is fair, Rick?
It should really hurt to have your mind work like that, it's only fair. Sigh. Hon, if a man were charged with criminal buggery with a female, in all likelihood it is in connection with one or more problems with the act, it was committed in addition to a rape, the partner was under-aged or unable to give consent, etc. Get back to me when you can find even one instance in recent history where it was ever applied to an otherwise consensual act between two people of the opposite sex who had an expectation of some privacy when they did it and then compare it to the number of men who were prosecuted for otherwise consensual acts committed with an expectation of it being private.
Blacktigershark wrote:
I do believe that the laws of buggery and sodomy should be blended in with the laws of rape, and that the punishments for EACH of these crimes be the same, where it comes to these acts being meted out against NON-CONSENTING adults, or against persons that aren't legally able to consent to such acts. Removing acts of buggery and sodomy from the criminal code of jamaica would be irresponsible and dangerous, wouldn't you agree, Rick?
I haven't once advocated that non-consensual acts of oral and/or anal copulation be allowed for ANYONE. Words like "sodomy" and "buggery" need to be completely removed from the law, they simply don't mean the same things in the minds of the public as it does under most such laws.
Blacktigershark wrote:
BEFORE you answer that question, Rick...have you looked to see what the laws on buggery and sodomy are in YOUR nation, kid? I do believe that laws in America in relation to buggery and sodomy are under the umbrella of rape and sexual assault there, correct?
I'm well aware of what the laws are in this country. The last of the laws which criminalized consensual same sex and/or opposite sex "sodomy/unnatural acts" were struck down as unconstitutional ten years ago. In spite of this, 17 states still have consensual "sodomy/unnatural acts" laws on their books, the 13 struck down in the Lawrence ruling and 4 that had there's overturned by state courts in the years before. They are however, constitutionally unenforceable. These laws also have provisions against these same acts that are not committed with consent which are still very enforceable. A lot of them are in need of a serious rewrite to get rid of words that mean something quite different in the minds of the public than it actually does under the law.
Blacktigershark wrote:
This is all that I'm saying should be done in Jamaica...not for sodomy and buggery to be completely EXPELLED from the Jamaican law books, but for them to be placed in context of a crime, where it comes to NON-CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy and buggery, and placing these non-consensual acts of buggery, sodomy, rape and other forms of sexual assault under the same heading, with all garnering the same penalty.
Do you find that as unacceptable, Rick? I hope not...
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012
Words like sodomy, buggery and unnatural acts need to be expelled, non-consensual oral and anal sex should be criminal under the law as acts unto themselves.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#18 Feb 12, 2013
Blacktigershark wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are so QUICK to make snap judgement against Jamaica, right...based on what you HEARD, correct Curt? That is what I'm trying to highlight in your comment, Curt...just remember, the sources that claim that Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place aren't saying that Jamaica is a HORRIBLE place, because Jamaica allow foreigners on their island...
No need to try to insult my intelligence with your belief that Jamaica is a horrible place, in your mind, while not attributing that what is horrible about Jamaica is the Jamaicans that live in Jamaica, Curteese...maybe you have not been able to see the vast transformation in regards to tolerance AND ACCEPTANCE of LGBT citizens in Jamaica, so if you are only getting part of the story, where it comes to J-FLAG reporting that there are atrocities being committed against LGBT citizens, then I guess you aren't witness to scores of LGBT AND heterosexual Jamaicans standing side by side in 'freaky clubs', where LGBT Jamaicans are having sex on stage, or where there are LGBT Jamaicans committing violent acts against other LGBT Jamaicans, or where LGBT Jamaicans are committing violent acts against heterosexual Jamaicans, as well as committing acts of vandalism against buildings like J-FLAG, the organization that is out to help LGBT citizens in Jamaica...
But if I left my post off on THAT point, it also would be an incomplete picture now, wouldn't it, Curteese? The issues surrounding LGBT citizens in Jamaica is a LOT MORE COMPLICATED than just saying that LGBT citizens in Jamaica don't have any rights in Jamaica, are frequently persecuted, and jailed for long, indefinite amounts of time...as those statements are simply exaggerated or outright false, Curteese.
There are problems in Jamaica, Curt, and I have no problem admitting that, though the atmosphere that is being displayed about Jamaica is over-exaggerated in most instances, and that is not fair about Jamaica, when there is the SAME level of homophobia being unleashed in many developed nations on this planet (America, Canada, England, etc.), and in various other countries, the level of homophobia is GREATER than it is in Jamaica!
Wow, you're wound REALLY tight, aren't you?

I'm sure that there are delightful areas of Jamaica, but do some research on line also. Almost all of the 10 or so travel resources I just read over before responding to you agree with me. If a tourist stays in some small guarded area, he or she is safe. They advise women to NOT go alone, or if they do, to NOT wander alone unchaperoned. This is a fun care free vacation?

The best part of travel is to leave the hotel grounds. To be fair, you won't find me going to Mexico, anywhere in Mexico. Even the old popular resort of Acapulco is on trip watch advisories to avoid due to danger.

I spent most of my life in Los Angeles but you would never find me in some tougher parts of town. Never. However, I can walk without fear in most parts of LA.

I think you are taking it too personally and any criticisms of your home land are taken as insults to you personally. Try to not be so easily offended. You can shoot back at me how horrible Los Angles is and you won't find me pounding out passionate rebuts as you love to do. I don't care what you think of my home town. Go there or don't. It is of no interest or importance to me.

If you think that anyone can walk free and easy anywhere in Kingston or any other Jamaican town, let me know.
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#19 Feb 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
A lot of things are not "SUPPOSED to be used to discriminate against", folk dear, but as long as the law is written to where it can be used by those with the power to do so, to discriminate, there will be those who will. It needs to be changed or struck down by the Courts to make sure that it CAN'T be used to discriminate, not just cross our fingers and hope no one uses the kind of power at their disposal. The laws against consensual "buggery" (sodomy/unnatural acts) in this country were written to prohibit said acts among the heterosexual set too, but the history of prosecutions under said laws shows that when it came to consensual "buggery", they were all but exclusively homosexual in nature. Look into the history of its actual not theoretical use back in Jamaica and tell me that it hasn't always been used as a threat against homosexuals and rarely if ever used against heterosexual consensual acts.
You don't see a problem and then you go on to tell me all about a series of seriously ugly problems that you can explain in great detail but still not see it as problems. Wow. Look at what you told me that this particular provision has actually led to, legal discrimination, official harassment and pretty f*cking arbitrary imprisonment (but at least they won't be there long if all they did was commit an act of public affection). But you don't see that as being a problem.
Never been to Jamaica, but have known and worked with Jamaicans over the years and have actually been in the area of Jamaica quite a few times. Nobody sees as it as a great travel destination for gay folk and never has.
Well, Rick...you seem to talk about Jamaica like you KNOW Jamaica, though, one thing you DO admit is that you have NEVER been to Jamaica, so Jamaica would not be a topic that you can discuss with intimate knowledge, right? RIGHT!

It seems as if you enjoy breaking up text, so that you can respond to individual paragraphs, I will answer your paragraphs in kind, so here goes. Your first paragraph comes down to you saying that the laws NEED to be changed or struck down, so that discrimination does not continue to occur against LGBT Jamaicans. Did you not see me AGREE to the fact that the laws SHOULD be rewritten, so that discrimination against ANY Jamaican or any tourist (INCLUDING LGBT Jamaicans and tourists) doesn't EVER OCCUR AGAIN? Guess you MISSED that part of my comment, in your need to sequester one part of my comment, so that you have something to quarrel about. I also suppose that you don't recognize an ally when placed face to face with said ally...just wondering here...are ALL LGBT people from America like this to Jamaicans that are sympathetic to their cause?

:\

Your second paragraph talks about how sodomy laws in America, where these laws were advocating against CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy and buggery, almost always discriminated against LGBT citizens. The KEY word in your comment is the word 'ALMOST'! Maybe seeing that there are SOME heterosexual people that have been prosecuted and incarcerated for consensual acts of sodomy will make you see that it isn't STRICTLY laws that EXCLUSIVELY discriminate against LGBT Americans, right RIck? Not saying that these sodomy laws didn't target LGBT citizens, though I can see where the argument can come from in regards to gay rights activists groups!

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11bar.ht...

Let's not forget that there ARE HETEROSEXUAL people convicted of sodomy in America, and that likely is the case in Jamaica also...is this something that you can refute, Rick? Now, you want ME to seek out to prove YOUR point?

/:

In your third paragraph, I never said that there isn't problems in Jamaica, though I have yet to see ONE case where there are any people in Jamaica that have been convicted for CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy or buggery, in the private confines of their own place, out of the sight of the public, Rick!
Blacktigershark

Edmonton, Canada

#20 Feb 12, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
It should really hurt to have your mind work like that, it's only fair. Sigh. Hon, if a man were charged with criminal buggery with a female, in all likelihood it is in connection with one or more problems with the act, it was committed in addition to a rape, the partner was under-aged or unable to give consent, etc. Get back to me when you can find even one instance in recent history where it was ever applied to an otherwise consensual act between two people of the opposite sex who had an expectation of some privacy when they did it and then compare it to the number of men who were prosecuted for otherwise consensual acts committed with an expectation of it being private.
I haven't once advocated that non-consensual acts of oral and/or anal copulation be allowed for ANYONE. Words like "sodomy" and "buggery" need to be completely removed from the law, they simply don't mean the same things in the minds of the public as it does under most such laws.
I'm well aware of what the laws are in this country. The last of the laws which criminalized consensual same sex and/or opposite sex "sodomy/unnatural acts" were struck down as unconstitutional ten years ago. In spite of this, 17 states still have consensual "sodomy/unnatural acts" laws on their books, the 13 struck down in the Lawrence ruling and 4 that had there's overturned by state courts in the years before. They are however, constitutionally unenforceable. These laws also have provisions against these same acts that are not committed with consent which are still very enforceable. A lot of them are in need of a serious rewrite to get rid of words that mean something quite different in the minds of the public than it actually does under the law.
Words like sodomy, buggery and unnatural acts need to be expelled, non-consensual oral and anal sex should be criminal under the law as acts unto themselves.
Rick...in relation to your FIRST paragraph, you have NEVER been to Jamaica, yet you are talking about Jamaica in the sense that Jamaica has prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated LBGT Jamaicans for CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy and buggery, while at the same time, giving heterosexual Jamaicans a pass for committing the SAME acts of CONSENSUAL acts of sodomy and buggery. It is like you automatically believe the negative things that you hear about Jamaica, WITHOUT having the facts, Rick, and it is clear that you do the SAME thing in regards to making judgements about discrimination against LGBT citizens in America, when clearly (though not all that pronounced) there are heterosexual people that are also being persecuted for the same things that LGBT citizens are being persecuted for. Likely, the fact that you conveniently leave out this inconvenient truth that heterosexuals are persecuted for the SAME things that LBGT citizens are persecuted for, gives you the ammunition you need to cry outright discrimination against the LGBT community, when that isn't COMPLETELY the case, correct Rick! I have told you before, that I'm not here to prove YOUR point...that is YOUR job! Look at my last link that I posted...it would show that heterosexuals are persecuted for the SAME thing that you complain that ONLY LGBT citizens are convicted of, and the situation in the cases of the heterosexual people are THE SAME!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11bar.ht...

Just because you don't seek out to see whether heterosexual people were persecuted and incarcerated for sodomy, doesn't mean that these people don't exist, Rick!

Now, where it comes to the laws in your country, there are states that STILL try to uphold laws against CONSENSUAL acts of buggery and sodomy, against ALL persons in their state, Rick, not just against LGBT people. The struggle in having federal law striking down state statutes is a process, is it not? How many people have to sit in prison, before federal law has them released?

Jamaica's laws need to be REWRITTEN. I stand by this...do you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kingston, Jamaica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News British woman arrested after stripping on a pla... Mar 25 Mega Monster 28
cxc past paper (Feb '08) Mar 21 Vanessa lewis 1,370
ehh mon Mar 9 ehh mon 3
Kingston Music Thread (Oct '12) Mar 6 Musikologist 12
News Weather History: Feb. 1: Record temps, tornadoe... Feb '15 Raphael 2
News Is Jamaica losing reggae? (Nov '09) Feb '15 fire don 26
CXC Past papers (Apr '09) Jan '15 gabriela 277
More from around the web