Orville Taylor, Contributor
Every time that I conclude that the gay debate is over, I realise that I can't turn my back on it. Rather, it is an issue that sensible well-thinking Jamaicans must confront.
In recent weeks, there has been a spate of encounters between the public and the gay minority. Most of the scenes and some of the participants were ugly.
The first involved three suspected homosexuals who, when disturbed by an inquisitive female, responded by assaulting her with a drink they were having. Already intolerant of 'sodomy', the rabble turned into a typical violent mob, hell-bent on lynching them. Luckily, they were rescued by police personnel who wisely put them in the rear seats and beat a hasty retreat.
Another incident involved a set of overly exuberant gay youths gyrating on stage in Montego Bay and getting pelted with missiles. Why are they called missiles if they hit their target?
Anyway, the third attack was at a rural church where men were reportedly flouting the normal ecclesiastical dress code. Not willing to accept the biblical admonition to "rend your heart and not your garments," the members of the community literally understood what it meant to 'cross dress' as they were all vexed to the point of stoning the building.
Taking a break from prophesying and counter-prophesies, the church, with Bishop Herro Blair as chief advocate, joined Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) in condemning violence against gays. Some disagree with Blair et al and suggest it was a 'Herro' to 'defend b-bwoy,' and it would be an unsuccessful Blair Witch Project.
Homosexual cross-dressers
Public Defender Earl Witter raised the arguments that male homosexuality was illegal and perhaps Jamaican gays should "hold their corners" or hide in the cracks. Just before Witter opened his mouth on the subject, gay men from the aforementioned Montego Bay, advanced upon the non-rival regional paper, the Western Mirror, threatening to harm the reporter who had written a story about homosexual cross-dressers buying female underwear. It was a rather amusing story as it is difficult to imagine male genitalia fitting into thongs. Women, with far less to accommodate, often complain tha very appealing, they are notoriously uncomfortable.
Nonetheless, amusement apart, the recent sorties point to some fundamental issues. First of all, we are too violent a society and are far too prone to such acts. No one should be subject to violence unless he or she is in the process of harming others or is seriously resisting arrest. That is the rule in a law-abiding society. People ought not to be beaten simply because their lifestyles are offensive.
One can, however, excuse the public when there is pederasty (child-targeted homosexuality), or other attempts to force one's sexual will unto a victim. Therefore, it is difficult to reproach an unsuspecting gardener, who accepts a drink from the boss, who then plies him with alcohol and attempts to violate him in his stupor. Neither can one have much sympathy for those predators who lure and drug young boys and have sex with them against their will.
The same goes for those 'bad men' in prison who try to 'bow' new inmates, and those outside of institutions, who feel that having sexual contact with an enemy or disobedient 'soldier' is an acceptable means of punishment.
However, two adult men, consensually engaging in samurai-type activities or fencing, in the privacy and the confines of their homes is a different kettle of fish. According to the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the state has no place in a citizen's bedroom as long as there is no crime being committed. True, the act of male-to-male homosexual intercourse is the crime of buggery, but how does that affect us straight 'vaginophiles?'
Yet, these recent face-offs between the homophobes and the homophiles raise two fundamental questions. First, it is whether we should expand our human rights to accommodate this type of 'diversity'. Second, whether we should widen the tolerance of a violent Jamaican public.
Anti-gay countries
However, there is a big difference between allowing gay persons to live peacefully and uninterruptedly and making sexual orientation a fundamental right. The United Nations, the conceptualiser and guardian of human rights, has not gone in that direction. Try as you may, only a small number of countries legalise homosexuality. In virtually all of Africa and Asia, it is criminal. Latin America is far more anti-gay than Jamaica. Why would one expect the most reverend Prime Minister and deacon Golding to push for this? I bet my bottom dollar that despite the strong belief that homosexuals and bi-sexuals figure among the 60 parliamentarians, none will propose such legislation even though it would benefit them.
On the matter of tolerance, I have to take issue with an editorial in this newspaper on Thursday last. One of the inviolable elements in a democracy is freedom of conscience and most important, freedom of expression. This is further consolidated as freedom of the press, one principle upon which this publication was founded.
The public defender makes sense, because I would not walk into a Ku Klux Klan-dominated neighbourhood in Alabama with a Black Panther jacket. Neither would I recommend anyone to walk into Tivoli with a yellow Portia shirt, or into Payne Land with a green Bruce jersey. Discretion is the better part of valour. Cross-dressing is not the same as effeminacy.
More worrisome was the attack on the press. Gay advocacy is one thing; violating the press is another.
Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at UWI, Mona.
