Colin Stewart is a 45-year journalism veteran living in Southern…
Roger Ross Williams, director of “God Loves Uganda”
Roger Ross Williams recently called me about a dilemma. The talented and award-winning African-American director of “God Loves Uganda” was being conferred with an honorary Ph.D. by his hometown university, Lafayette College. This was for his ground-breaking work exposing the link between American religious fundamentalists and the wave of anti-gay hate sweeping Africa. As usual, there were other awardees and the trouble for Roger was the identity of one of them.
Also being bestowed with a degree, and the featured speaker at the commencement ceremony, was the Prime Minister of Jamaica, the Most Honourable Portia Simpson Miller. Ironically, she too was being recognized for her “leadership” in the area of LGBT human rights recognition. The irony is that on April 4, the PM publicly reneged on her 2011 election promise to call for a Parliamentary conscience vote on the country’s 1864 British colonially imposed anti-sodomy law. This law threatens consenting adult MSM [men who have sex with men] with 10 years in prison at hard labour for their private acts of intimacy. The stigmatizing statute has also been universally recognized as contributing to Jamaican MSM having the highest HIV prevalence rate in the western hemisphere (33%). However, Mrs. Simpson-Miller declared that the law did not impact “the majority of Jamaicans who are poor” and was therefore not a priority. Clearly someone at Lafayette had not done their homework, and Roger wanted to know how to handle the situation. Jamaica Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
I suggested that Roger directly ask the PM about her position on the law and he reported being very troubled by her response. The real reason Jamaica’s most senior politician abdicated her responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens was fear of the religious right. As reported by Roger, the PM felt that amending the law would lead to church-led riots and protests in the very fundamentalist nation. This threat is quite real as last year the usually competing religious groups united to mount island-wide demonstrations against a domestic challenge to the anti-sodomy law. This case is being brought by AIDS-Free World on behalf of a young homosexual Jamaican who was evicted for his sexual orientation.
But when did Jamaica, the country of “One Love”, become so anti-love? And what role has religion played in this regression?
I suggested to Roger that he should do a sequel to his probing documentary along the lines of “God Also Loves Jamaica”. This is because, the impact of anti-homosexuality American fundamentalists on the island mirrors the Ugandan experience, but with far less global coverage. This “love affair” has been ongoing for a long time, and the “love-child” is now fully grown, but he recently moved back in with his parents. The Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
My mother is a member of a fundamentalist evangelical church with strong US ties. She recalls that during her youth, everyone knew at least one person in the village who was homosexual, but no one cared. However, in the late 70′s and early 80′s she describes a “coarsening” of Jamaican society that coincided with a steady import of American televangelists and touring preachers. Crying clerics like Jimmy Swaggart, became a veritable fixture, and so was their fixation with the “abomination” of homosexuality. This was both convenient and coincidental. Condemning other biblical “sins” (such as promiscuity, adultery and drunkenness) had to be studiously avoided in this society where nearly 85% of the population is born out wedlock and there are possibly more bars than in any other country on the planet! The rhetoric also coincided with the explosion in the HIV epidemic, which provided “proof” of a vengeful deity exacting punishment on a deviant and defiant group. The preachers’ prophecies were therefore “fulfilled”, and offering plates overflowed. The Rev. Al Miller (Photo courtesy of the Jamaica Gleaner)
Swaggart, et. al, quickly spawned grotesque replicas of themselves and these home-grown puritans even mimicked a very affected style of praying and preaching of American pastors, as that was deemed more holy! Rev. Al Miller is a particular specimen of this genre, as is the country’s former Political Ombudsman, Bishop Herro Blair.
For many years, Jamaica seemed to have been self-sufficient in homophobia. Our country therefore settled into a pattern of hate-mongering preachers influencing impressionable musicians sitting in their pews who then went on to perform the most, and most vulgar, anti-homosexuality songs calling for murder, maiming and general mayhem against lesbians, gays and other sexually- and gender-diverse people.
Then something changed. Starting around 2009, the Jamaican LGBT movement became more organized and begun engaging in public calls for the recognition of our rights. From modest beginnings, this evolved into a very discernible liberation movement. And the fundamentalists took notice, as did their Global North backers. Louisiana lawyer Grover Rees III was U.S. ambassador to East Timor from 2002 to 2006. He was nominated by President George W. Bush.
In 2010, the right-wing religious faction began re-importing more outspoken and extremist pastors and academics from the US, Canada and the UK to bolster their demand that the anti-homosexuality status quo be maintained. And there were plenty of fanatical anti-homosexuality Global North citizens to choose from! As in Africa, these losers in the Northern culture wars found fertile ground in Jamaica. Their legal and academic credentials also gave them unprecedented access to influential Parliamentarians and policy makers. Even a former US Ambassador, Grover Rees III, has joined in the cavalcade of hate and is seeking to be admitted as an expert witness for the churches in the constitutional challenge to the Jamaican anti-sodomy law.
So far we have been inundated by Peter LaBarbera, Peter Tozzi, Dennis Jernigan, Paul Diamond, Dr. Janet Epp-Buckingham, and many others whose major strategic advice to their receptive Jamaican minions is to “play up pedophilia” and paint all homosexuals as a threat to children. In a country that has seen a raft of vicious attacks against youth, making homosexuals the scapegoat is particularly effective. And despite the fact that their arguments remain totally unsubstantiated, the homosexuality bashers persist, because they are doing God’s work! [Editor’s note: See comment below from Janet Epp-Buckingham.] Homeless LGBT youths sleeping in Jamaican sewers. (Photo courtesy of Micheal Forbes)
The polarizing and perverting impact of the fundamentalists can be seen in the situation of homeless LGBT youth who have been forced to live in the sewers of Jamaica’s capital, Kingston. These kids were evicted from their homes as young as 10 years old, and engage in sex work to survive. They are also paid extra for condomless sex by their (often married) male clients. This increases their vulnerability to HIV. Nevertheless, the major children’s rights group, which is led by Jamaica’s answer to the US’ anti-gay campaigner Anita Bryant, has refused to assist these youngsters because they represent the greatest evil!
So, 30 years later, Jamaica is right back where we started, and imported fundamentalists are once again sustaining Jamaica’s fetid fixation on homophobic hate with disastrous impacts for our HIV response.
I am not often given to pessimism, because, as an activist, that would be fatal. However, I confess that this latest fundamentalist invasion seems more deadly than the first. This time massive homophobic religious demonstrations, petitions, and preaching campaigns have characterized the anti-homosexuality crusaders like never before. And clearly not only homosexuals live in fear of them – our political leaders are equally petrified. This article appeared previously, also on June 9, in SOGINews.com.
Thank you for your article.
As a white Christian middle age man From Scotland I feel so ashamed that we continue to colonise minds with deviant Christianity. That type of religion is not acceptable and is a total abomination to the true Gospel of love. LGBT people are not abomination. We are all brothers and sisters and children of God. Homophobic Christians are the abomination. I want to send through this comment all my love to all the Jamaican LGBT. Christ was living in the margins of society like you are in Jamaica. Not in palaces and temples (now churches) but he is with you … in the sewage system, in the street, and when feeling alone. Please forgive me but I have only love and prayers to offer you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don’t know how I got implicated in this. I came to Jamaica and testified to parliamentarians about the proposed constitutional bill of rights. I told them that it would move more power to the courts and lessen their power. It was not about LGBT rights. I spoke to church groups during that visit as well. I noted that various issues had been addressed by Canadian courts, including LGBT rights, but the main focus was on the changing role of the courts vis-a-vis parliament. Let me be clear, I have never advised anyone in Jamaica or elsewhere on anti-gay laws. I am opposed to violence against anyone and for respect for all.
Editor’s note: The reference in the article was based on an article in the Jamaica Gleaner:
Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, highlighted the Canadian experience and said she was concerned about Jamaica’s proposed charter.
“Twenty-five years ago in Canada, we were right where you are now … twenty-five years ago none in Canada anticipated the kind of changes the charter would bring,” Dr. Buckingham said. “We knew what had happened in the U.S., we knew their abortion laws were pushed out, how religion was pushed out of schools. We knew, but we said we are a Christian country, our courts will not do that.”
MOST LIBERAL
Today Canada is considered one of the most liberal nations in the world and, according to Dr. Buckingham, ultimate power, through the Rights Charter, comes to rest with the court rather than Parliament.
She suggested it allows the courts to give remedy, even if there is a constitutional infringement, and that the courts would have the ability to strike down and make laws by “reading into” laws.
Dr. Buckingham said that, the more vague laws are, the less likely they are able to always protect the interest of the people they were established to protect.
Dr. Buckingham cited numerous cases through which the Canadian Supreme Court struck down laws related to abortion, homosexuality, porno-graphy and other issues. She said freedom of religion in the education sector has been the greatest challenge.
“Everybody wants the next generation,” she said. There were several cases of how Christian schools which received state funding were often forced to act in contravention of their beliefs or lose funding.
Canadian constitutional law is complex and so is our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which forms a part of the Constitution. It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution in Canada. This did not move any power away from Parliament and into the hands of the SCC, because, until we adopted our written Constitution in 1982, the final arbiter was the House of Lords in England!. Our Constitution was voted on by referendum and received a huge majority approval from the people of Canada and by every Provincial Parliaments except Quebec, which, at the time, had a separatist government.
Mind you, Dr. Buckingham could well have informed Jamaica on the impact of having a general clause like we have in Canada’s Charter of Rights; a clause that guarantees human rights protections for all minorities even if they are not specifically named in the Charter. And, contrary to Dr. Buckingham, many Canadians were in fact counting on using the Charter as an instrument for positive change. It was by relying upon this clause in the 1992 Haig and Birtch V Canada that “sexual orientation” was “read into” the Canadian Human Rights Act as its absence was found to be contrary to the Charter. From that decision on, Canadians could and did affirm and argue that sexual orientation was a protected grounds in the Charter. See: Haig v. Canada (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/226 (Ont. C.A.) [Eng. 7 pp.]. I was EGALE’s president (main sponsor of this case) at the time of this SCC in 1992..
Finally, this assertion is mostly incorrect: “She suggested it allows the courts to give remedy, even if there is a constitutional infringement, and that the courts would have the ability to strike down and make laws by “reading into” laws.” It is incorrect because the courts and tribunals give remedy when there is a constitutional infringement, and not “even if there is a constitutional infringement”. This is in fact the courts mandate. We in Canada chose not to let politicians have the final word on our Constitution. We chose and still prefer the wisdom of our non-political Supreme Court on this, as opposed to giving politicians the final word on our Constitution because out Supreme Court, as an instrument of law, has NEVER been corrupted.
There is nothing in this article that indicates that I suggested that homosexuals are a threat to children, that Jamaicans should advocate for laws against homosexuality or that gays and lesbians are pedophiles. Rather, I was speaking about the impact of having a constitutional bill of rights on the balance of power between the legislature and the courts, which changed after Canada adopted the Charter of Rights. Court decisions under the Canadian Charter have dramatically affected the place of religion in public life, and have impacted a wide variety of social issues. Most recently, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the criminal laws relating to prostitution. Some people in Canada agree with these changes and some do not. But the reality is that courts are now making this type of decision rather than the legislature. That was my point when I visited Jamaica in 2006 and I maintain that point.
I strongly opposed violence against gays and lesbians! And because of this article I am receiving hate mail and calls for something I never said nor advocated. Kindly remove my name from this article.
Dear Janet Epp Buckingham,
Thank you for the new comment. We’re considering your request and have not yet reached a conclusion.
— Colin Stewart, editor of this blog
Thank you for your article.
As a white Christian middle age man From Scotland I feel so ashamed that we continue to colonise minds with deviant Christianity. That type of religion is not acceptable and is a total abomination to the true Gospel of love. LGBT people are not abomination. We are all brothers and sisters and children of God. Homophobic Christians are the abomination. I want to send through this comment all my love to all the Jamaican LGBT. Christ was living in the margins of society like you are in Jamaica. Not in palaces and temples (now churches) but he is with you … in the sewage system, in the street, and when feeling alone. Please forgive me but I have only love and prayers to offer you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don’t know how I got implicated in this. I came to Jamaica and testified to parliamentarians about the proposed constitutional bill of rights. I told them that it would move more power to the courts and lessen their power. It was not about LGBT rights. I spoke to church groups during that visit as well. I noted that various issues had been addressed by Canadian courts, including LGBT rights, but the main focus was on the changing role of the courts vis-a-vis parliament. Let me be clear, I have never advised anyone in Jamaica or elsewhere on anti-gay laws. I am opposed to violence against anyone and for respect for all.
Editor’s note: The reference in the article was based on an article in the Jamaica Gleaner:
— Colin Stewart, editor of this blog
Canadian constitutional law is complex and so is our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which forms a part of the Constitution. It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution in Canada. This did not move any power away from Parliament and into the hands of the SCC, because, until we adopted our written Constitution in 1982, the final arbiter was the House of Lords in England!. Our Constitution was voted on by referendum and received a huge majority approval from the people of Canada and by every Provincial Parliaments except Quebec, which, at the time, had a separatist government.
Mind you, Dr. Buckingham could well have informed Jamaica on the impact of having a general clause like we have in Canada’s Charter of Rights; a clause that guarantees human rights protections for all minorities even if they are not specifically named in the Charter. And, contrary to Dr. Buckingham, many Canadians were in fact counting on using the Charter as an instrument for positive change. It was by relying upon this clause in the 1992 Haig and Birtch V Canada that “sexual orientation” was “read into” the Canadian Human Rights Act as its absence was found to be contrary to the Charter. From that decision on, Canadians could and did affirm and argue that sexual orientation was a protected grounds in the Charter. See: Haig v. Canada (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/226 (Ont. C.A.) [Eng. 7 pp.]. I was EGALE’s president (main sponsor of this case) at the time of this SCC in 1992..
Finally, this assertion is mostly incorrect: “She suggested it allows the courts to give remedy, even if there is a constitutional infringement, and that the courts would have the ability to strike down and make laws by “reading into” laws.” It is incorrect because the courts and tribunals give remedy when there is a constitutional infringement, and not “even if there is a constitutional infringement”. This is in fact the courts mandate. We in Canada chose not to let politicians have the final word on our Constitution. We chose and still prefer the wisdom of our non-political Supreme Court on this, as opposed to giving politicians the final word on our Constitution because out Supreme Court, as an instrument of law, has NEVER been corrupted.
There is nothing in this article that indicates that I suggested that homosexuals are a threat to children, that Jamaicans should advocate for laws against homosexuality or that gays and lesbians are pedophiles. Rather, I was speaking about the impact of having a constitutional bill of rights on the balance of power between the legislature and the courts, which changed after Canada adopted the Charter of Rights. Court decisions under the Canadian Charter have dramatically affected the place of religion in public life, and have impacted a wide variety of social issues. Most recently, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the criminal laws relating to prostitution. Some people in Canada agree with these changes and some do not. But the reality is that courts are now making this type of decision rather than the legislature. That was my point when I visited Jamaica in 2006 and I maintain that point.
I strongly opposed violence against gays and lesbians! And because of this article I am receiving hate mail and calls for something I never said nor advocated. Kindly remove my name from this article.
Dear Janet Epp Buckingham,
Thank you for the new comment. We’re considering your request and have not yet reached a conclusion.
— Colin Stewart, editor of this blog