WHY THE INDECENT HASTE ?
Anita Wise
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society
Published in The Gleaner,March 26, 2020
jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20200326/why-indecent-haste
THE EDITOR, Madam:
I am appalled by the insensitivity displayed by The Gleaner at this time of national crisis, in choosing to feature an editorial such as the one titled ‘Whither abortion reform’? Is this really what The Gleaner sees as most important to focus on at a time when our Government is working assiduously to try to contain the pandemic of the COVID-19 virus? There is a certain amount of irony in that as our Government, parliamentarians and health services are battling to save Jamaican lives from a dangerous life-threatening virus, there are those who think the first order of business should be the passing of a bill that seeks to take innocent lives.
Whatever your opinion of the subject in question, this attempt to pressure our Government to rush through such an important piece of legislation, while the country is distracted, is unethical and unscrupulous and is reminiscent of what happened in New Zealand. The writer of the March 23 editorial wrote about the passing of abortion legislation in New Zealand, which would allow abortion up to the fifth month of pregnancy, as a victory. The passing of this bill was nothing short of devious and dishonest. Aware that public support for the proposed abortion legislation was extremely low and the gap between the MPs who supported and opposed the abortion bill was narrowing, the Jacinda Arden government of New Zealand took full advantage of the panic surrounding the coronavirus pandemic and rushed the final stages of the abortion bill’s progress through Parliament in one day.
Our Government and the Parliament’s Human Resources and Social Development Committee have a duty of care to the most vulnerable members of our society not to heed any call to pass such an important piece of legislation by sleight of hand while the country is preoccupied with the current serious threat to our health and the economy. Bearing in mind that our national polls have shown that the majority of Jamaicans are against abortion, I certainly would not vote for any government that would be so callous and unprincipled, and neither should any well-thinking Jamaican.
ANITA WISE
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society
Published in The Gleaner,March 26, 2020
jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20200326/why-indecent-haste
THE EDITOR, Madam:
I am appalled by the insensitivity displayed by The Gleaner at this time of national crisis, in choosing to feature an editorial such as the one titled ‘Whither abortion reform’? Is this really what The Gleaner sees as most important to focus on at a time when our Government is working assiduously to try to contain the pandemic of the COVID-19 virus? There is a certain amount of irony in that as our Government, parliamentarians and health services are battling to save Jamaican lives from a dangerous life-threatening virus, there are those who think the first order of business should be the passing of a bill that seeks to take innocent lives.
Whatever your opinion of the subject in question, this attempt to pressure our Government to rush through such an important piece of legislation, while the country is distracted, is unethical and unscrupulous and is reminiscent of what happened in New Zealand. The writer of the March 23 editorial wrote about the passing of abortion legislation in New Zealand, which would allow abortion up to the fifth month of pregnancy, as a victory. The passing of this bill was nothing short of devious and dishonest. Aware that public support for the proposed abortion legislation was extremely low and the gap between the MPs who supported and opposed the abortion bill was narrowing, the Jacinda Arden government of New Zealand took full advantage of the panic surrounding the coronavirus pandemic and rushed the final stages of the abortion bill’s progress through Parliament in one day.
Our Government and the Parliament’s Human Resources and Social Development Committee have a duty of care to the most vulnerable members of our society not to heed any call to pass such an important piece of legislation by sleight of hand while the country is preoccupied with the current serious threat to our health and the economy. Bearing in mind that our national polls have shown that the majority of Jamaicans are against abortion, I certainly would not vote for any government that would be so callous and unprincipled, and neither should any well-thinking Jamaican.
ANITA WISE
Busting Rattray’s Pro-Abort Myths Part 2 (unpublished)
Dr Daniel Thomas
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society & Love March Movement
THE EDITOR, Madam:
I am forced to once again refute another set of falsehoods delivered by someone trying to hide behind the veil of emotion disguised as reason, except that his myths keep awkwardly sticking out.
Not Gods, only doctors
Dr. Rattray shared a compelling account of a 48-year-old woman with uncontrolled hypertension (160/100) who just found out she was pregnant, was panicking, and wanted an abortion. Dr. Rattray would lead his readers to believe that he was able to see into the future that this fourth time being pregnant would certainly kill her. Doctors can’t see the future. Instead of panicking with the poorly informed lady, maybe the good doctor’s role was to empathetically reassure her of some medical facts:
1. This baby is not likely to be the cause of your elevated blood pressure. Pre-eclampsia (the deadliest of hypertensive diseases in pregnancy) is a disease of the late second and third trimesters (after 20 weeks). You need to take your medication.
2. There are several things that we can do to preserve your health while you carry this baby. Victoria Jubilee has a high-risk clinic where you can get top-notch care, weekly if necessary, and for free. We will take care of you.
3. If it is deemed that the baby is truly a threat to your health, you will be admitted for careful monitoring and the baby will be delivered to protect you both. The baby will then be taken to the nursery where the doctors will do everything they can to preserve his or her life.
The expressed goal of an abortion is the death of the baby. No abortion is ever successful with a baby born alive. Pregnant women in crisis, with heart disease, cancers, "raging" lupus, renal disease etc need reassurance and a multidisciplinary approach to their care and that of their babies, including their specialist, their obstetrician and a neonatologist.
100% False
Let me reassure the public that Dr. Rattray’s statement which follows is wholly false: “According to our existing law, even if such a woman will certainly die if she continues to carry that foetus, she must carry it and die”. There is no law that says that a woman must carry her baby to term (38 weeks), or continue to carry the baby after she develops a medical emergency. Every single day in this country, babies are delivered prematurely for a myriad of reasons especially including the protection of the life of the mother. Every day we do our best to prolong the pregnancy and preserve the lives of both patients.
This statement is also utterly false: “Jamaica only recognises a baby as a ‘life in being’ AFTER the baby takes its first breath and the umbilical cord is severed”. Section 72 of the Offences Against the Person Act reads “whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman… unlawfully use[s] any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of a felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for life”. " Additionally in Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act the beneficiaries of the estate of a deceased person include the unborn child. Our laws confer an extremely high value on the unborn!
Clearly and unfortunately, Dr. Rattray has missed the mark again. His chronological proximity to life expectancy should not be blamed for his philosophical affinity to death; his devaluation of human life developed independent of age and profession and should be kept in the old-grey relics of history where no 3D Ultrasounds or endoscopic fetoscopy exist.
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society & Love March Movement
THE EDITOR, Madam:
I am forced to once again refute another set of falsehoods delivered by someone trying to hide behind the veil of emotion disguised as reason, except that his myths keep awkwardly sticking out.
Not Gods, only doctors
Dr. Rattray shared a compelling account of a 48-year-old woman with uncontrolled hypertension (160/100) who just found out she was pregnant, was panicking, and wanted an abortion. Dr. Rattray would lead his readers to believe that he was able to see into the future that this fourth time being pregnant would certainly kill her. Doctors can’t see the future. Instead of panicking with the poorly informed lady, maybe the good doctor’s role was to empathetically reassure her of some medical facts:
1. This baby is not likely to be the cause of your elevated blood pressure. Pre-eclampsia (the deadliest of hypertensive diseases in pregnancy) is a disease of the late second and third trimesters (after 20 weeks). You need to take your medication.
2. There are several things that we can do to preserve your health while you carry this baby. Victoria Jubilee has a high-risk clinic where you can get top-notch care, weekly if necessary, and for free. We will take care of you.
3. If it is deemed that the baby is truly a threat to your health, you will be admitted for careful monitoring and the baby will be delivered to protect you both. The baby will then be taken to the nursery where the doctors will do everything they can to preserve his or her life.
The expressed goal of an abortion is the death of the baby. No abortion is ever successful with a baby born alive. Pregnant women in crisis, with heart disease, cancers, "raging" lupus, renal disease etc need reassurance and a multidisciplinary approach to their care and that of their babies, including their specialist, their obstetrician and a neonatologist.
100% False
Let me reassure the public that Dr. Rattray’s statement which follows is wholly false: “According to our existing law, even if such a woman will certainly die if she continues to carry that foetus, she must carry it and die”. There is no law that says that a woman must carry her baby to term (38 weeks), or continue to carry the baby after she develops a medical emergency. Every single day in this country, babies are delivered prematurely for a myriad of reasons especially including the protection of the life of the mother. Every day we do our best to prolong the pregnancy and preserve the lives of both patients.
This statement is also utterly false: “Jamaica only recognises a baby as a ‘life in being’ AFTER the baby takes its first breath and the umbilical cord is severed”. Section 72 of the Offences Against the Person Act reads “whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman… unlawfully use[s] any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of a felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for life”. " Additionally in Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act the beneficiaries of the estate of a deceased person include the unborn child. Our laws confer an extremely high value on the unborn!
Clearly and unfortunately, Dr. Rattray has missed the mark again. His chronological proximity to life expectancy should not be blamed for his philosophical affinity to death; his devaluation of human life developed independent of age and profession and should be kept in the old-grey relics of history where no 3D Ultrasounds or endoscopic fetoscopy exist.
LETTER OF THE DAY | BUSTING RATTRAY’S PRO-ABORT MYTHS
Dr Daniel Thomas
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society & Love March Movement
Published: Saturday | February 29, 2020
jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20200229/letter-day-busting-rattrays-pro-abort-myths
THE EDITOR, Madam:
This is a response to Dr Garth Rattray’s column published in The Gleaner on February 24, 2020. While outlining some of the potential side effects of home abortions and the impact of black market abortion drugs, Dr Rattray stumbles at a few critical junctures in his exposé.
Dr Rattray propagates the fake medical knowledge that unborn babies should be killed to save their mothers. Every day at Victoria Jubilee Hospital, there are mothers whose lives are in danger. This is often due to preeclampsia (a hypertensive disease in pregnancy) or a myriad of other illnesses that are extremely common.
These illnesses aren’t common in the first trimester, but occur in the second or third trimesters. An abortion at this stage would mean a dilatation and curettage (scraping and sucking out the baby), a saline abortion (where the baby is burnt in acid in the womb) or dismemberment.
There is no MEDICAL reason to do this! There is never a need to scrape out or burn the baby or crush a baby’s skull, suck out their brains or dismember them. If a mother’s life is in danger, we do our best to prolong the pregnancy to allow for as much maturation of the baby as possible, and then induce labour, bringing the premature baby to the paediatricians, who do their best to preserve life.
Our lives inevitably include mentally traumatic events and situations. Mental trauma after birth is not a justification for infanticide, and similar trauma during pregnancy cannot justify the killing of the innocent unborn child.
Dr Rattray goes on to describe a foetus as being “the potential for human life”. He seems to think the foetus is either not alive or not human. Well, things that grow, excrete, move and use nutrients must be alive (learnt that in Grade 4).
The baby’s heart is beating as early as day 18. Each life starts at conception and progresses unhindered until natural death. Humans aren’t exempt. Secondly, only a little human can grow into a bigger human. There is no scientific evidence that organisms can switch species as they grow.
Puppies become big dogs. Kittens become big cats. Babies become big humans (must have learnt that in at least Grade 3). The marker of humanity, human DNA, is uniquely formed from the moment of conception. A foetus is a living human being, so much so that scientific advancements have allowed us to do medical procedures, even surgeries, on babies after taking them out of the womb, then putting them back for further growth!
Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is not just removing a lump of potentially human cells. Abortion kills a living person and is always unnecessary. Just pretend you are the baby. It could have easily been you.
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society & Love March Movement
Published: Saturday | February 29, 2020
jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20200229/letter-day-busting-rattrays-pro-abort-myths
THE EDITOR, Madam:
This is a response to Dr Garth Rattray’s column published in The Gleaner on February 24, 2020. While outlining some of the potential side effects of home abortions and the impact of black market abortion drugs, Dr Rattray stumbles at a few critical junctures in his exposé.
Dr Rattray propagates the fake medical knowledge that unborn babies should be killed to save their mothers. Every day at Victoria Jubilee Hospital, there are mothers whose lives are in danger. This is often due to preeclampsia (a hypertensive disease in pregnancy) or a myriad of other illnesses that are extremely common.
These illnesses aren’t common in the first trimester, but occur in the second or third trimesters. An abortion at this stage would mean a dilatation and curettage (scraping and sucking out the baby), a saline abortion (where the baby is burnt in acid in the womb) or dismemberment.
There is no MEDICAL reason to do this! There is never a need to scrape out or burn the baby or crush a baby’s skull, suck out their brains or dismember them. If a mother’s life is in danger, we do our best to prolong the pregnancy to allow for as much maturation of the baby as possible, and then induce labour, bringing the premature baby to the paediatricians, who do their best to preserve life.
Our lives inevitably include mentally traumatic events and situations. Mental trauma after birth is not a justification for infanticide, and similar trauma during pregnancy cannot justify the killing of the innocent unborn child.
Dr Rattray goes on to describe a foetus as being “the potential for human life”. He seems to think the foetus is either not alive or not human. Well, things that grow, excrete, move and use nutrients must be alive (learnt that in Grade 4).
The baby’s heart is beating as early as day 18. Each life starts at conception and progresses unhindered until natural death. Humans aren’t exempt. Secondly, only a little human can grow into a bigger human. There is no scientific evidence that organisms can switch species as they grow.
Puppies become big dogs. Kittens become big cats. Babies become big humans (must have learnt that in at least Grade 3). The marker of humanity, human DNA, is uniquely formed from the moment of conception. A foetus is a living human being, so much so that scientific advancements have allowed us to do medical procedures, even surgeries, on babies after taking them out of the womb, then putting them back for further growth!
Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is not just removing a lump of potentially human cells. Abortion kills a living person and is always unnecessary. Just pretend you are the baby. It could have easily been you.
Exporting Sexual Anarchy:
The new Emphasis of America’s Foreign Policy
Dr Kay Bailey
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society
Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society
Barely twelve weeks after his appointment US Special envoy for Human Rights of LGBT persons, Mr. Randy Berry is currently paying a visit to Jamaica. The timing of his visit and the priority of Jamaica in the list of planned stops are not insignificant.
In appointing him to this unique post, the Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that Mr. Berry’s mandate was at the “heart of American foreign policy” as an “advocate for the rights of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and transgender people overseas” and for “overturning laws that criminalize consensual sex acts”.
No one can deny that all the genuine fundamental rights of LGBT persons are already guaranteed and enforceable under Jamaican law. The priority of special LGBT “rights” is clearly evidenced by the fact that the current administration has not seen it fit to appoint a similar ambassador in any other sphere where human rights are considered to be under threat.
The appointment of Mr. Berry suggests that sexual anarchy - the establishment of sexual ethics based on desire - is now a central aspect of American foreign policy. This is an alarming development considering the high and increasing prevalence of HIV in western democracies where Mr. Berry’s goals have already been achieved, and the annual cost of treating this largely preventable condition.
It may be instructive to consider the milestones on the trajectory of this notable moment in American history.
The publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male in 1948 was a watershed moment in America (and the world’s) law, sexual ethics and social mores. As a result of research which is now known to be methodically flawed and ethically questionable, Kinsey claimed to disprove assumptions about desirable human behaviour and sexual ethics which had served for centuries as the foundation for social taboos and laws.
In his book Kinsey cited anecdotal reports from known paedophiles, as data representative of the sexual response of children as young as two months. Data in adults were collected from volunteers, rather than a randomly chosen population. The questions asked assumed - in the words of one member of the Kinsey team - that “everyone had done everything “.
In a 1993 journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, J. Gordon Muir and Edward W. Eichel accused Kinsey of using and deliberately concealing disproportionate samples of subjects including 25% prisoners, additional sex offenders and several hundred male prostitutes, and lying about the nature of his work. Despite this, the answers to Kinsey’s sex questionnaires were extrapolated to general population. From this data ,Kinsey concluded that there was no clear dividing line between heterosexuals and homosexuals, instead sexuality was a continuum. Kinsey’s “data” also presented pre-marital, extramarital and animal sexual contact as mundane and common activities.
These ideas heavily influenced sex-education, psychology, medicine and law. As Kinsey and his collaborators argued, it would be counter-productive to criminalize activities in which a majority of citizen indulged. This “research” provided “scientific evidence“ for many who desired a revolution in prevailing sexual norms. The more than 6000 citations of Kinsey in law, social science and scientific journals reveal the extent of his influence.
As far back as 1948, Morris Ploscowe, (author of the American Law Institute - Moral Penal Code) relied on Kinsey to call for a change in US law by asserting that “Pre-marital, extra marital, homosexual and animal contacts are eventually indulged in by 95% of the population in violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, it is obvious that our sex crimes legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living.”
The decision of Lawrence v Texas in 2003, arguably placed a stamp of approval on the philosophy that sex was a private act and its boundaries (but not its consequences) a matter for individual responsibility. One notable voice of warning in this case was that of Judge Antonin Scalia who warned that repeal of the sodomy laws would eventually threaten the definition of marriage. Even a cursory look at American legal history proves him correct. In 1993 the Supreme Court of the state of Hawaii ruled (in Baehr v. Lewin) that the Hawaiian state statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was presumed to be unconstitutional. Three years later President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defence of Marriage Act(DOMA), which barred the federal Government from recognizing same-sex unions. Scalia’s prediction was more fully realized when in June 2013, the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA, declaring it unconstitutional. In what may be the coup de grace for natural marriage, the US Supreme Court is now deliberating on whether same sex “marriage” is a constitutional right.
The Obama administration illogically asserts that sexual relations between same gender persons are good and admirable; but anatomy and physiology (structure and function) as well as differential HIV prevalence rates clearly show that to be an irrational notion. Equally irrational is the fallacious idea of a “right“ to sodomy, which if imposed, would imply that this behavior cannot be legally treated any differently from natural heterosexual relations. Further any one who attempts to do so would be in breach of the “human rights” of those who indulge.
One outcome of these irrational new “rights” is the fact that service-providers have been fined, dismissed or otherwise punished for refusing to affirm same-sex “marriages” by producing wedding cakes, photography, or other services. Academics such as Crystal Dixon have been dismissed for refuting the equivalence of race and sexual “orientation” and Kelvin Cochran was dismissed from his job after years as a fire chief for espousing a traditional definition of marriage.
The global danger of the establishment of LGBT ”rights” at the heart of US foreign policy is that where such “rights” are being ignored in other countries, the sovereignty of the offending state will not be accepted as justification.
This is the face of the new imperialism being foisted on Jamaica in the person of Mr. Berry.
The visit of this “LGBT ambassador” is in flagrant contempt of Jamaica’s sovereignty as expressed in the opinion of 91 % of the citizens. The valid fundamental human rights of all Jamaicans can and should be respected without affirming behaviour that is unnatural, medically and socially harmful, as well as directly inimical to human flourishing
The lesser developed states of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean cannot afford the financial or social costs of following this illogical US experiment.
This is one export that we should politely but firmly decline.
Published in Sunday Gleaner - May 24, 2015
In appointing him to this unique post, the Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that Mr. Berry’s mandate was at the “heart of American foreign policy” as an “advocate for the rights of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and transgender people overseas” and for “overturning laws that criminalize consensual sex acts”.
No one can deny that all the genuine fundamental rights of LGBT persons are already guaranteed and enforceable under Jamaican law. The priority of special LGBT “rights” is clearly evidenced by the fact that the current administration has not seen it fit to appoint a similar ambassador in any other sphere where human rights are considered to be under threat.
The appointment of Mr. Berry suggests that sexual anarchy - the establishment of sexual ethics based on desire - is now a central aspect of American foreign policy. This is an alarming development considering the high and increasing prevalence of HIV in western democracies where Mr. Berry’s goals have already been achieved, and the annual cost of treating this largely preventable condition.
It may be instructive to consider the milestones on the trajectory of this notable moment in American history.
The publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male in 1948 was a watershed moment in America (and the world’s) law, sexual ethics and social mores. As a result of research which is now known to be methodically flawed and ethically questionable, Kinsey claimed to disprove assumptions about desirable human behaviour and sexual ethics which had served for centuries as the foundation for social taboos and laws.
In his book Kinsey cited anecdotal reports from known paedophiles, as data representative of the sexual response of children as young as two months. Data in adults were collected from volunteers, rather than a randomly chosen population. The questions asked assumed - in the words of one member of the Kinsey team - that “everyone had done everything “.
In a 1993 journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, J. Gordon Muir and Edward W. Eichel accused Kinsey of using and deliberately concealing disproportionate samples of subjects including 25% prisoners, additional sex offenders and several hundred male prostitutes, and lying about the nature of his work. Despite this, the answers to Kinsey’s sex questionnaires were extrapolated to general population. From this data ,Kinsey concluded that there was no clear dividing line between heterosexuals and homosexuals, instead sexuality was a continuum. Kinsey’s “data” also presented pre-marital, extramarital and animal sexual contact as mundane and common activities.
These ideas heavily influenced sex-education, psychology, medicine and law. As Kinsey and his collaborators argued, it would be counter-productive to criminalize activities in which a majority of citizen indulged. This “research” provided “scientific evidence“ for many who desired a revolution in prevailing sexual norms. The more than 6000 citations of Kinsey in law, social science and scientific journals reveal the extent of his influence.
As far back as 1948, Morris Ploscowe, (author of the American Law Institute - Moral Penal Code) relied on Kinsey to call for a change in US law by asserting that “Pre-marital, extra marital, homosexual and animal contacts are eventually indulged in by 95% of the population in violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, it is obvious that our sex crimes legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living.”
The decision of Lawrence v Texas in 2003, arguably placed a stamp of approval on the philosophy that sex was a private act and its boundaries (but not its consequences) a matter for individual responsibility. One notable voice of warning in this case was that of Judge Antonin Scalia who warned that repeal of the sodomy laws would eventually threaten the definition of marriage. Even a cursory look at American legal history proves him correct. In 1993 the Supreme Court of the state of Hawaii ruled (in Baehr v. Lewin) that the Hawaiian state statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was presumed to be unconstitutional. Three years later President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defence of Marriage Act(DOMA), which barred the federal Government from recognizing same-sex unions. Scalia’s prediction was more fully realized when in June 2013, the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA, declaring it unconstitutional. In what may be the coup de grace for natural marriage, the US Supreme Court is now deliberating on whether same sex “marriage” is a constitutional right.
The Obama administration illogically asserts that sexual relations between same gender persons are good and admirable; but anatomy and physiology (structure and function) as well as differential HIV prevalence rates clearly show that to be an irrational notion. Equally irrational is the fallacious idea of a “right“ to sodomy, which if imposed, would imply that this behavior cannot be legally treated any differently from natural heterosexual relations. Further any one who attempts to do so would be in breach of the “human rights” of those who indulge.
One outcome of these irrational new “rights” is the fact that service-providers have been fined, dismissed or otherwise punished for refusing to affirm same-sex “marriages” by producing wedding cakes, photography, or other services. Academics such as Crystal Dixon have been dismissed for refuting the equivalence of race and sexual “orientation” and Kelvin Cochran was dismissed from his job after years as a fire chief for espousing a traditional definition of marriage.
The global danger of the establishment of LGBT ”rights” at the heart of US foreign policy is that where such “rights” are being ignored in other countries, the sovereignty of the offending state will not be accepted as justification.
This is the face of the new imperialism being foisted on Jamaica in the person of Mr. Berry.
The visit of this “LGBT ambassador” is in flagrant contempt of Jamaica’s sovereignty as expressed in the opinion of 91 % of the citizens. The valid fundamental human rights of all Jamaicans can and should be respected without affirming behaviour that is unnatural, medically and socially harmful, as well as directly inimical to human flourishing
The lesser developed states of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean cannot afford the financial or social costs of following this illogical US experiment.
This is one export that we should politely but firmly decline.
Published in Sunday Gleaner - May 24, 2015
LGBT Rights: Are Gay Rights, Human Rights?
by Shirley Richards, Attorney-at-Law
The question makes a major assumption, which is that the claims for LGBT “rights” do in fact qualify as “rights”. Barbados Today, an online newspaper, applauded Barbadians for correctly identifying gay rights as “the right of all persons to be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation”[1] Let’s be clear, all human beings are subject to the same orientation: it’s the orientation to do wrong. All persons are entitled to fundamental human rights, and are to be treated equally before the law, but all behaviors are not equal in their impact and outcomes. Surely, the behaviour of a man who treats his wife with respect and dignity cannot be classified as being equivalent to that of a man who abuses his wife. Thus, we find that there is need in society to differentiate behaviours which are not in the common interest. For some, behaviour and its impact on society are of very little consequence; for them, what matters is that the cannons of human rights must be given the highest accord.
But what are human rights? According to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”. But why should there be any such thing as “human rights” at all? Who has the privilege of defining the rights which are “inherent to all human beings”? Do LGBT claims qualify as rights which are inherent to all human beings? If human beings have rights simply by virtue of being humans, then why are such rights limited to the species? Sir William Blackstone, in giving thought to the nature of “the rights of man”, also used the language of “inherent rights”. This is part of what he said:
The absolute rights of man… are usually summed up in one general appellation and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth and one of the gifts of God… But every man, when he enters society, gives up a part of his natural liberty as the price of so valuable a purchase.[2]
Contemporary concern for “human rights” was as a direct result of the atrocities committed in World War II. The result was the encoding of these concerns in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble to the UDHR refers to “equal and inalienable rights” and to ‘fundamental human rights”. Among the rights listed are the rights to privacy: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” (Article 12), freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Articles 18 and 19).
Very important for those claiming LGBT rights is the “right” of consenting males to engage in private sexual activity as part of the right to privacy. The claim is that Jamaica’s buggery law (s. 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences against the Person Act (OAPA)) places the country in breach of human rights obligations under international treaties. This argument is usually made in relation to the right to “privacy” found also in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However “there is no treaty that expressly states that homosexual sex must be regarded as lawful. ”
The only way that privacy or equality rights can mean rights to LGBT activity is if those rights could be read to mean that there is a right to sexual activities. There can be no such right, as there is no corresponding duty on the State or anyone to provide or facilitate sexual activities. The State has a vested interest in regulating activities, including sexual activities, which impact the individual and the common good. The acts of sexual intercourse and anal penetration are not the same. The difference lies both in the nature of the activity and in the impact of the activity. Logically, then, they cannot be treated equally.
Countries which have allowed for LGBT “rights”, including rights based on sexual orientation, have seen a clash of these “rights” with certain of the fundamental human rights. Recent occurrences in Ireland are instructive. Ireland is a country that lost its buggery law by judicial process. It is also the only country in the UK where same-sex marriage has not been legitimised. The following is an extract from the Daily Mail UK, November 17, 2014:
… The McArthur family, devout Presbyterians who own the company, refused to bake a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.
The cake was to be the focus of a civic event in Belfast, staged by the gay rights pressure group Queerspace to mark International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia….
After the order was rejected, Queerspace could have gone to another supplier and if it still felt offended, it could have urged its supporters to boycott Ashers. But, instead, a complaint was lodged with the taxpayer-funded Equalities Commission, Northern Ireland [which]… decided to proceed with the case and sue the bakery for discrimination, on the grounds of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘political belief’. The decision has triggered disbelief across the political spectrum, not least because Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where politicians have voted not to introduce gay marriage…
But what about the human rights of people who, for strong moral reasons or based on their faith, need protection? ...
Another firm, in Armagh, run by Nick Williamson, a committed Christian, was similarly threatened with legal action by the commission after he turned down an order to produce a glossy gay magazine…. It’s almost as if they are determined to make the McArthurs martyrs. But then logic, common sense and morality fly out of the window when the Thought Police and political correctness become involved.[3]
It is true that there are countries, including The Bahamas (1991), which have decriminalised buggery, or which never had buggery on their statute books, and which are not currently experiencing the restrictions on fundamental rights which other countries are experiencing. But doesn’t wisdom dictate local preventative action in a time of epidemics elsewhere? Who takes down shutters when hurricanes are approaching?
So are LGBT claims to rights “human rights? Once LGBT claims are elevated to the status of human rights they quickly dominate the panel, causing fundamental human rights to bow in subservience. It was interesting to read that Rene Cassin, one of the authors of the UDHR, “locates its ideological roots in the Ten Commandments”[4]. That may have been so. What is now being pushed is a godless concept of human rights on which concepts such as “good, right and wrong” have been sacrificed with harsh penalties for those who refuse to bow. It is not surprising that Melanie Phillips in her book, Londonistan, makes the point that “Human rights doctrine is the principal cultural weapon to undermine the fundamental values of Western society. As the human rights activist, Francesca Klug, has boasted in her book, Values for a Godless Age, human rights are now probably as significant as the Bible has been in shaping modern western values".
The irreconcilable nature of LGBT “rights” with certain fundamental human rights means that, at the very least, a cautious approach is in order. Maybe it would be wise to be guided by Sir William Blackstone, who stated, “The control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance.”[5] The words of Orlando Patterson should also serve as a warning to western civilisation as we seek to satisfy our unrestrained quest for new rights: “Try as we might… the brute historical fact remains that we have been unable to transcend the blessings that come with personal freedom”[6]
[1] Barbados Today (2014, November 21). “Gay Rights and Unions”. Retrieved from http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2014/11/21/gay-rights-and-unions/
[2] William Blackstone (Ed.). (1830).Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol.1), p.125
[3] Pierce, A. (2014, November 6). “The Real Victims of Bigotry”. The Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824510/The-real-victims-bigotry-family-bakers-dragged-court-opponents-gay-marriage-persecuted-Tories-vowed-protect-them.html
[4] Montgomery, J.W. (1986, 1995). Human Rights and Human Dignity. Canadian Institute for Law Theology Public Policy. p.30
[5] William Blackstone (Ed.). (1830). Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol.1), p. 126.
[6] Patterson, O. (1991). Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (Vol. 1) BasicBooks p. 403
The question makes a major assumption, which is that the claims for LGBT “rights” do in fact qualify as “rights”. Barbados Today, an online newspaper, applauded Barbadians for correctly identifying gay rights as “the right of all persons to be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation”[1] Let’s be clear, all human beings are subject to the same orientation: it’s the orientation to do wrong. All persons are entitled to fundamental human rights, and are to be treated equally before the law, but all behaviors are not equal in their impact and outcomes. Surely, the behaviour of a man who treats his wife with respect and dignity cannot be classified as being equivalent to that of a man who abuses his wife. Thus, we find that there is need in society to differentiate behaviours which are not in the common interest. For some, behaviour and its impact on society are of very little consequence; for them, what matters is that the cannons of human rights must be given the highest accord.
But what are human rights? According to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”. But why should there be any such thing as “human rights” at all? Who has the privilege of defining the rights which are “inherent to all human beings”? Do LGBT claims qualify as rights which are inherent to all human beings? If human beings have rights simply by virtue of being humans, then why are such rights limited to the species? Sir William Blackstone, in giving thought to the nature of “the rights of man”, also used the language of “inherent rights”. This is part of what he said:
The absolute rights of man… are usually summed up in one general appellation and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth and one of the gifts of God… But every man, when he enters society, gives up a part of his natural liberty as the price of so valuable a purchase.[2]
Contemporary concern for “human rights” was as a direct result of the atrocities committed in World War II. The result was the encoding of these concerns in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble to the UDHR refers to “equal and inalienable rights” and to ‘fundamental human rights”. Among the rights listed are the rights to privacy: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” (Article 12), freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of opinion and expression (Articles 18 and 19).
Very important for those claiming LGBT rights is the “right” of consenting males to engage in private sexual activity as part of the right to privacy. The claim is that Jamaica’s buggery law (s. 76, 77 and 79 of the Offences against the Person Act (OAPA)) places the country in breach of human rights obligations under international treaties. This argument is usually made in relation to the right to “privacy” found also in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However “there is no treaty that expressly states that homosexual sex must be regarded as lawful. ”
The only way that privacy or equality rights can mean rights to LGBT activity is if those rights could be read to mean that there is a right to sexual activities. There can be no such right, as there is no corresponding duty on the State or anyone to provide or facilitate sexual activities. The State has a vested interest in regulating activities, including sexual activities, which impact the individual and the common good. The acts of sexual intercourse and anal penetration are not the same. The difference lies both in the nature of the activity and in the impact of the activity. Logically, then, they cannot be treated equally.
Countries which have allowed for LGBT “rights”, including rights based on sexual orientation, have seen a clash of these “rights” with certain of the fundamental human rights. Recent occurrences in Ireland are instructive. Ireland is a country that lost its buggery law by judicial process. It is also the only country in the UK where same-sex marriage has not been legitimised. The following is an extract from the Daily Mail UK, November 17, 2014:
… The McArthur family, devout Presbyterians who own the company, refused to bake a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.
The cake was to be the focus of a civic event in Belfast, staged by the gay rights pressure group Queerspace to mark International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia….
After the order was rejected, Queerspace could have gone to another supplier and if it still felt offended, it could have urged its supporters to boycott Ashers. But, instead, a complaint was lodged with the taxpayer-funded Equalities Commission, Northern Ireland [which]… decided to proceed with the case and sue the bakery for discrimination, on the grounds of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘political belief’. The decision has triggered disbelief across the political spectrum, not least because Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where politicians have voted not to introduce gay marriage…
But what about the human rights of people who, for strong moral reasons or based on their faith, need protection? ...
Another firm, in Armagh, run by Nick Williamson, a committed Christian, was similarly threatened with legal action by the commission after he turned down an order to produce a glossy gay magazine…. It’s almost as if they are determined to make the McArthurs martyrs. But then logic, common sense and morality fly out of the window when the Thought Police and political correctness become involved.[3]
It is true that there are countries, including The Bahamas (1991), which have decriminalised buggery, or which never had buggery on their statute books, and which are not currently experiencing the restrictions on fundamental rights which other countries are experiencing. But doesn’t wisdom dictate local preventative action in a time of epidemics elsewhere? Who takes down shutters when hurricanes are approaching?
So are LGBT claims to rights “human rights? Once LGBT claims are elevated to the status of human rights they quickly dominate the panel, causing fundamental human rights to bow in subservience. It was interesting to read that Rene Cassin, one of the authors of the UDHR, “locates its ideological roots in the Ten Commandments”[4]. That may have been so. What is now being pushed is a godless concept of human rights on which concepts such as “good, right and wrong” have been sacrificed with harsh penalties for those who refuse to bow. It is not surprising that Melanie Phillips in her book, Londonistan, makes the point that “Human rights doctrine is the principal cultural weapon to undermine the fundamental values of Western society. As the human rights activist, Francesca Klug, has boasted in her book, Values for a Godless Age, human rights are now probably as significant as the Bible has been in shaping modern western values".
The irreconcilable nature of LGBT “rights” with certain fundamental human rights means that, at the very least, a cautious approach is in order. Maybe it would be wise to be guided by Sir William Blackstone, who stated, “The control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance.”[5] The words of Orlando Patterson should also serve as a warning to western civilisation as we seek to satisfy our unrestrained quest for new rights: “Try as we might… the brute historical fact remains that we have been unable to transcend the blessings that come with personal freedom”[6]
[1] Barbados Today (2014, November 21). “Gay Rights and Unions”. Retrieved from http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2014/11/21/gay-rights-and-unions/
[2] William Blackstone (Ed.). (1830).Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol.1), p.125
[3] Pierce, A. (2014, November 6). “The Real Victims of Bigotry”. The Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824510/The-real-victims-bigotry-family-bakers-dragged-court-opponents-gay-marriage-persecuted-Tories-vowed-protect-them.html
[4] Montgomery, J.W. (1986, 1995). Human Rights and Human Dignity. Canadian Institute for Law Theology Public Policy. p.30
[5] William Blackstone (Ed.). (1830). Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol.1), p. 126.
[6] Patterson, O. (1991). Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture (Vol. 1) BasicBooks p. 403
DOMA RULING WARPS EQUALITYby Shirley Richards, Attorney-at-Law
In the case of United States vs Windsor, the United States Supreme Court held on June 25, 2013, that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA provided as follows:
"In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." DOMA was passed by the Congress in 1996 before any state had passed legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. The case that was before the Supreme Court surrounded a lesbian 'married' couple, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who lived in the state of New York. Same-sex marriage became legal in New York in 2011. Upon Spyer's death, the IRS declined to allow her estate "spousal estate tax exception on the grounds that, under the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government did not recognise same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits". Ms Windsor appealed the decision. In a 5-4 decision, the majority ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violated principles of equal protection by treating relationships with equal status under state law differently under federal law. What this means is that same-sex 'married' couples in the 12 states which have legitimised same-sex marriage are now entitled to federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court: "DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so, it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. The constitution's guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group." p. 20. Justice Kennedy further reasoned that: "... DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 US 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify." p. 23. NO DESIRE TO HARM The Lawrence case being referred to by Justice Kennedy is the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence vs Texas which effectively made sodomy laws across the United States unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy was the judge who wrote the majority opinion in that decision. Justice Scalia, who delivered one of the minority judgments in the DOMA case, did not see "animus" or a desire to harm in the actions of Congress. According to him, DOMA was just "stabilising prudence" on the part of Congress to make certain that there was no change "unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own". For Justice Scalia, in enacting DOMA, Congress: "... Did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence - indeed, it had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change ..." p. 20. According to Justice Scalia: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves and the power of the court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandises the latter with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power under the constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The court's errors on both points spring from the same diseased root; an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." p. 1. |
Justice Scalia bemoaned the reliance of the majority in the Windsor case, on the decision of Lawrence vs Texas:
"When the court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it "demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the constitution protects". p.22. Such reasoning of the majority in the Windsor case is eerily reminiscent of the assurances given in 1999 by Ann McLennan, the then Canadian minister of justice, who went on record as saying that the definition of marriage would not be affected by the ruling of the courts in the M vs H case. (The judgment in M vs H allowed for same-sex couples to be included in the definition of 'spouse').Yet six years later, by reason of certain judicial decisions, the Canadian Parliament, under the same Liberal Party of Canada, found itself passing C38 legalising same-sex marriages. Could such assurances be classified as 'famous last words'? EQUAL? REALLY? But is equality the last and only word on these issues? How can same-sex relationships be considered to be equal with opposite-sex relationships? Thankfully, Justice Kennedy himself gave us the answer - when he told us that this is a relationship that the State "sought to dignify". The only way that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships can be made equal is by legislation. However, legislation can only demand equal treatment of these relationships, it cannot cure the innate differences. A key difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships is that the former are ALL incapable of procreation by natural means. Another difference is related to outcome. Truly all persons are created equal, but not all behaviours are equal in outcomes. Thus it is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study published in AIDS Behav. 2011 Apr 15 Suppl 1:S9-17 states: "The sexual health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States is not getting better despite considerable social, political and human-rights advances. Instead of improving, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain disproportionately high among MSM and have been increasing for almost two decades. The disproportionate and worsening burden of HIV and other STIs among MSM requires an urgent reassessment of what we have been doing as a nation to reduce these infections, how we have been doing it, and the scale of our efforts." (Emphasis mine) When is the US going to face the facts and admit to the world that this social experiment is not working? What would be the future of the human race if all persons were to adopt the same-sex lifestyle? Is a society not entitled to discourage behaviour which goes to the very core of its existence? What then is the basis for bestowing equality on same-sex relationships in defiance of reality? "Look!" the little boy shouted, "The emperor is naked!" |
TELL MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN THE TRUTH
by Dr. Kay Bailey
|
US NEWS and World Report of July 3, 2013, reported that if HIV continues to spread at current rates in the United States of America (USA) "half of college-aged gay men will have the infection by the age of 50". This statement is consistent with research presented by Professor Ronald Stall of the University of Pittsburgh in 2008 cited in Infectious Disease News, March 2008:
"Stall and his colleagues conducted a model cohort study to examine the potential lifetime risk of HIV infection among MSM (men having sex with men) in the United States. Using the current estimated HIV incidence rate of 2.39 per cent for this patient population, the researchers created a model cohort of young MSM at age 18 with no HIV infection at baseline and tracked their lifetime risk of contracting HIV. "By age 20, less than 5 per cent of the model cohort would have contracted HIV. At age 25, this rate increased to 15 per cent; by age 30, it was 25 per cent; by age 40, the rate was 41 per cent. mong black MSM in the United States, the rates were even higher. Using the lowest rates of HIV incidence reported for black MSM in the United States, 4 per cent, the model showed that by age 25, 25 per cent of black MSM will be HIV positive. By age 35, the rate was 50 per cent; by age 40, it was 60 per cent". The US News and World Report article also quoted Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS Prevention in saying that "Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic". The CDC Fact Sheet published in December 2012 noted that: "MSM represent approximately 4 per cent of the male population but male-to-male sex accounted for more than three-fourths (78 per cent) of new HIV infections among men and nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of all new infections in 2010". In the Lancet Special Issue on HIV in Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), July 2012, Summary Points for Policy Makers, Chris Beyrer et al published that HIV epidemics among MSM were expanding in all countries regardless of income levels. They provided the following explanations for this observed phenomenon: "Biological and behavioral factors make the dynamics of the MSM epidemic different than for general populations. The disproportionate HIV disease burden in MSM is explained largely by the high per-act and per-partner transmission probability of HIV transmission in receptive anal sex. Modeling suggests that if the transmission probably of receptive anal sex was similar to that associated with unprotected vaginal sex, five-year cumulative HIV incidence in MSM would be reduced by 80-90 per cent. Many MSM practise both insertive and receptive roles in sexual intercourse, which helps HIV spread in this population. Were MSM limited to one role, HIV incidence in this population over five years would be reduced 19-55 per cent in high-prevalence epidemics. Taking both factors (per act transmission probability and role versatility) into account explains 98 per cent of the difference between HIV epidemics among MSM and heterosexual populations - behavioral differences account for two per cent of the difference." This information is being provided in response to article of July 7, 2013 by guest columnist Brian Paul Welsh, who accused the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) of lying in advertisements about the status of the HIV epidemics among MSM. |
One source of his anger was that JCHS only reported that "98 per cent of the difference in HIV rates between MSM and heterosexuals could be explained by anal receptive activity". Mr Welsh objected because the JCHS did not include the statement that "if unprotected anal intercourse in casual relationships instead happened within long-term main partnerships, HIV prevalence would be reduced by 29-51 per cent". However, this in no way contradicts the information contained in the JCHS advertisement. Both pieces of data were reported by the Lancet and do not hold a contradictory relationship.
Mr Welsh knows quite well that the maintenance of long-term main partnerships among MSM is a big 'IF'. It seems that Mr Welsh is living in the world of 'IF'. The results of the French and American articles were remarkable because sociopolitical, medical and human-rights advances were expected to solve the HIV problem but they had not done so among MSM. The situation has improved in all other groups, for example, new cases of HIV have decreased in black females in the USA by 21 per cent. The Lancet article proposed possible solutions to the HIV problem in MSM: IF homosexuals became monogamous and did not engage in casual relations, IF poverty were solved, IF better education were provided, IF homosexuals became less dysfunctional - these are all big 'IFs'. LEAVE LAWS ALONE The JCHS contends that the intestine is not a sex organ, that the anal erotic practices of MSM are inherently unnatural and disordered and that there is no obligation to change our laws to reflect any right to carry out anal penetration, fisting, felching or farming. The accusation that "the coalition and its supporters have no interest in preserving the lives of MSM" should be viewed against the fact that on December 1, 2012 the coalition - at its own expense - published full-page ads in both newspapers advocating for "behavioural change to reduce HIV". The dangerous behaviours which the coalition warned against included anal penetration, unprotected sex and multiple partners. The JCHS advertisement 'Speaking truth is not homophobia', published in May 2013, is an accurate reflection of the state of the HIV epidemics among MSM. Mr Welsh's use of emotive words like "desperation' and "moral bankruptcy" and his allegation of lying, would have been unnecessary if the statements published by the JCHS could have been shown to be false. It is a great pity that instead of warning MSM of the truth of the dangers of the lifestyle - the HIV/AIDS epidemics - Mr Welsh has instead resorted to slanderous accusations. We suggest that as a public service, The Gleaner should repeat these advertisements, both as a warning to MSM and as a way of correcting this blatant attack on the integrity of the JCHS and its chairman. |
THE STATE IS ALREADY IN OUR BEDROOMS
7/2/2014
|
In the current debate about political correctness, tolerance and discrimination we hear repeatedly that the State has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens. Sounds reasonable, but is it true?
The truth is that the State is already in our bedrooms as it is illegal for us to have sexual intercourse with our parents, siblings, children, or the family pet. We are told that people have a right to love who they want, and express it how they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, and for that reason backward Jamaica must catch up with other enlightened countries and get rid of our "homophobic buggery law". One of the goals of a civilised society is to try to reconcile law and liberty, balancing the rights of individuals against what is best for society as a whole. I would argue that the law helps to confine the practice of buggery to the privacy of the bedroom. Once the law is removed, it is then certain that the right to anal penetration will begin to inform and influence the State. If anal penetration is good and normal, then logically there is no barrier to "same-sex" marriage, same-sex adoption, educating children as to the normalcy of this practice, and ultimately punishing those who express the opinion that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. Even the term "wife" or "husband" becomes pejorative and offensive to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI) activists.The homosexual/LGBTI rights agenda/movement is not about the privacy of the bedroom, and private individuals loving who they want. It is about affirming the supremacy of their bedroom practices in the public square.
|
Private acts have public consequences, as evidenced by the experience of England, Canada and the United States, where we see that when the bedroom seduces the State, biology, law and common sense have to bow to the new "heterophobia". Don't believe me? How is this for sound biology and common sense? Same-sex couples under the national health system of Britain now have the "right" to "get pregnant" by accessing fertility treatment. It was reported in the UK newspaper, the Telegraph (among others) in May 2012 that gay and lesbian couples and women over 40 will be offered free IVF (In vitro fertilisation) treatment under new Government proposals. The article reported that "same-sex couples will be given the same rights as heterosexual couples under guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence". Will changing the "buggery law" really protect bedroom privacy or take us down a very slippery slope? You decide. CS |
NEO-COLONIALISTS' SNEAKY JFJ COURSE
6/28/2014
Here we go again. Will we never wake up and learn? The past few days have seen the Jamaican public being made aware of yet another controversial, age-inappropriate sex-education programme aimed at reshaping and subverting the minds of our children. This time, it comes in the form of a sex-education course sneakily introduced by Jamaicans for Justice under the former leadership of Dr Carolyn Gomes, into six children's homes, without the knowledge of the Child Development Agency. The programme is said to contain material that promotes the acceptance of anal penetration and homosexuality and other age-inappropriate and illegal content.
This attempt to indoctrinate our children comes as no surprise to those of us who are familiar with, and who have worked on, the revision of the now infamous Sex and Sexuality Module of the Health and Family Life Education Curriculum aimed at grades seven to nine. The material contained in that module of the curriculum very similarly sought to: i) normalise anal penetration and homosexuality, ii) to present as normal and natural the idea that gender is not tied to biology, and iii) to promote abortion as a right that children have (under the now well-known euphemism of sexual and reproductive health). It also subtly sought to remove parental responsibility and to encourage the children to know their sexual 'rights'.
Fortunately, we still have laws - laws against buggery, laws against sex with minors, laws against abortion, and a Child Care Protection Act. It is because of these laws (which some have called for the repeal of because they say they are outdated) why the minister of education and now the minister of youth and culture have been able to recall, revise and prevent material dangerous to young minds from continuing to be used, and have been able to hold accountable those who have facilitated the placing of it in our schools and children's homes.
Without these laws as boundaries, the Government, parents and the public would not have the legal grounds on which to denounce these behaviours being taught to children because these actions would be legal. All sexual behaviours would be equal before the law and, therefore, allowable in our schools, giving parents no recourse to the law. Contrary to what some persons seem to think, these laws are not just cosmetic and about personal choices and privacy. They are vital to the protection of our children.
Make no mistake, there is a new imperialism at work, and the strategy is to begin with the moulding of our children's pliable minds. These neo-colonialist lobbies are well funded and very aware that due to our precarious financial state, Jamaica is for sale. It began at the University of the West Indies; now our most vulnerable children have been targeted - those without the protection of parents and who have already been wounded by abandonment and other trauma. Who is there to protect them? It seems that we cannot leave it to our agencies alone.
We need to fight for the retention of the above-mentioned laws as we understand that our laws, however old, are there to protect us and our children from situations just like these.
CB
This attempt to indoctrinate our children comes as no surprise to those of us who are familiar with, and who have worked on, the revision of the now infamous Sex and Sexuality Module of the Health and Family Life Education Curriculum aimed at grades seven to nine. The material contained in that module of the curriculum very similarly sought to: i) normalise anal penetration and homosexuality, ii) to present as normal and natural the idea that gender is not tied to biology, and iii) to promote abortion as a right that children have (under the now well-known euphemism of sexual and reproductive health). It also subtly sought to remove parental responsibility and to encourage the children to know their sexual 'rights'.
Fortunately, we still have laws - laws against buggery, laws against sex with minors, laws against abortion, and a Child Care Protection Act. It is because of these laws (which some have called for the repeal of because they say they are outdated) why the minister of education and now the minister of youth and culture have been able to recall, revise and prevent material dangerous to young minds from continuing to be used, and have been able to hold accountable those who have facilitated the placing of it in our schools and children's homes.
Without these laws as boundaries, the Government, parents and the public would not have the legal grounds on which to denounce these behaviours being taught to children because these actions would be legal. All sexual behaviours would be equal before the law and, therefore, allowable in our schools, giving parents no recourse to the law. Contrary to what some persons seem to think, these laws are not just cosmetic and about personal choices and privacy. They are vital to the protection of our children.
Make no mistake, there is a new imperialism at work, and the strategy is to begin with the moulding of our children's pliable minds. These neo-colonialist lobbies are well funded and very aware that due to our precarious financial state, Jamaica is for sale. It began at the University of the West Indies; now our most vulnerable children have been targeted - those without the protection of parents and who have already been wounded by abandonment and other trauma. Who is there to protect them? It seems that we cannot leave it to our agencies alone.
We need to fight for the retention of the above-mentioned laws as we understand that our laws, however old, are there to protect us and our children from situations just like these.
CB
