Incognito

I decided to change my name on my blog posts for some strange reason. Primarily because I promised those dearest to me that I would be more careful with the direction my advocacy takes lest I commit career and social suicide. The irony is that advocacy for the advancement of the rights of the vulnerable usually leaves the advocate more vulnerable and with less rights. And with that said, for the moment, I now assume the moniker "Incog Nito"... though it is only a thinly veiled  disguise.

With that out of the way....

I attended a legal symposium put on by the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship last weekend at the University of the West Indies and was left flabbergasted at the way hate speech can be so easily enveloped an re-packaged into proselytism. It is so effortless the way that pious separatism and xenophobia can come dancing off the tongue in a bacchannal akin to the ditty the pied piper played while leading the rats to their demise.

Such was the sinister nature of the LCF forum. It was a rhetorical lobotomy of biblical proportions.

Ordinarily I would be seething after hearing nonsense such as theirs but this time I'm confused, and empathetic toward their ignorance.

I am averse to circular arguments and so convincing them that their thought process is flawed and inherently prejudicial is an aimless activity but I really do feel sorry for their world view. They want to form a bloc of nations with similar values to challenge the US and UK and their perceived neo-imperialist agenda of cultural domination and hegemony. Essentially that means they would love to see Jamaica form a political alliance with the likes of Uganda, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. Remember these are Christians so they  believe very firmly in the David and Goliath paradigm so they shall not be moved!

Poor things. I wish them well.



Subscribe in a reader

Be Thy Brother's Keeper

Another letter I have penned with hopes of having my voice heard on this particular issue once more.

The Editor Sir,

The argument posited by certain members of the religious right and the nouveau intelligentsia that it would be illogical to repeal the buggery law in light of the disproportionate rates of HIV infection recorded among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) in epidemiological data is flawed at its core and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the variables which account for this disproportionate rate.

The argument is that retention of the buggery law in light of the rates of infection is in fact prohibitive towards new infections and is ergo a societal good. I submit that this analysis is fallacious.

The buggery law is but one of many variables which exacerbate the systemic vulnerabilities of MSM to HIV infection. I would never propose that repealing the law would serve as a panacea; in fact I posit that it is merely the first step in the right direction for government in the creation of a supportive social environment that will advance the welfare of every Jamaican  with special attention paid to those with peculiar vulnerabilities.

A fatal (though intentional) flaw of Marc Ramsey's and Shirley Richards' diatribes of exclusion published November 12, 2011  was the failure to recognize how the buggery law legitimizes hostile attitudes toward sexual minorities and how in fact its retention is a symbol of the complicity of government in the abuse suffered at the hand of misguided homophobes that operate with a spirit of entitlement as a result of a law they interpret to mean that MSM are un-apprehended criminals furtively existing outside the scope of justice. How these misguided souls are encouraged by pious hypocrites is another matter for another column but all part of the cycle of abuse at the hands of clerics.

MSM are not infectious disease vectors any more than another societal demographic but the vulnerabilities faced by this population can only be addressed through open dialogue with an aim to reduce vulnerability, foster social inclusion, and curb the spread of disease.

This is the meaning of being your brother’s keeper. It is a pity those among us that purport to have a closer relationship with the author of these words continuously fail to demonstrate his most basic philosophies and instead choose to perpetuate separatist ideals.

I am Sincerely,

Brian-Paul N. Welsh

brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

St. Andrew, Jamaica

Update: Letter was published but edited to sound less stinging. I'm not a big fan of censorship but at least the message has got out there despite the Gleaner's best efforts to silence dissenting voices and the seeming cass-cass brewing in the editorial department over this recently introduced epidemiological fallacy.

Subscribe in a reader

The campaign continues...

Today's thoughts committed to paper:

The Editor Sir,

The problem with giving uncritical minds new knowledge is that it inspires them to use these tools to validate already questionable deductive capacities and it usually results in the creation of logical fallacies.

Unfortunately such was the case with Elvena Williams whose letter was published Wednesday November 9, 2011 under the title “Meet Gays Halfway But...”.

She prefaces her proficiency as a social scientist by describing a study she conducted untold years prior under the topic “Profile of the Jamaican Homosexual” wherein she interviewed 50 male homosexuals aged 25-45 from white-collar backgrounds. Surely she could not have expected such a limited sample to allow her to extrapolate findings capable of constituting a “profile” of any social group much less one as diverse as male homosexuals and to go further to prove that homosexuality is a matter of choice. But by her own admission not only did she expect it, she also achieved it.

If so then she has achieved something that has eluded the fields of philosophy, psychology and gender studies since their inception. She has apparently outsmarted all the major gender theorists and psychologists such as Kinsey, Hooker and Klein and rubbished their seminal work!

She is hesitant to ascribe any notion of heredity to homosexuality and instead likens it to mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. This of course betrays the presumed authority of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which de-listed homosexuality from the category of mental disorders almost 40 years ago. She has reversed decades of science in one fell swoop! Amazing!

As a result of her findings and in recognition of human rights she prescribes a modified retention of the buggery law which decriminalizes male same-sex activity in a private sphere but outlaws the “flaunting of this lifestyle in public spaces” such as “drag parties”. This would effectively shut down the very lucrative and popular roots theatre industry but that’s alright because it’s done in the interest of public morality!

She means well, but her circular reasoning to get there has certainly taken my head for a spin.

Fact is, no one knows the origins of human sexuality. Whether sexuality is chosen, pre-determined, or an accident of evolution is immaterial when it comes to legislating the activities of consenting adults in their private abodes. That is the essence of the campaign to repeal the buggery law.

Sincerely,

Brian-Paul N. Welsh

Brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

We'll see if it is published. Doubt it anyway because it's over the 300 word limit.
Subscribe in a reader

AIDS Free World's Press Conference

I am so glad I was there to participate in this initiative.I hope that the dialogue will continue and I am certainly encouraged in light of this editorial.









Subscribe in a reader

Crosses here again!

So Aunty Shirley has risen from her slumber and you know I had to respond with a letter of my own!

Dear Sir,

I offer some sympathy to S. Richards as she struggles to understand the complexities of the troubling situation involving the relationship between Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), HIV and prohibitive laws. In fact it is something I tend to refer to as the Paradox of HIV Infection.

It is indeed a paradox in that in the three decades since HIV and AIDS were discovered with the resulting plethora of social and legal changes and the billions of dollars that have been spent to curb the spread, we as advocates and policy makers have been at pains to rationalize the apparent resistance of seroprevalence rates to fall correspondingly.

In health surveys done all over the world from limping developing nations such as ours to seemingly streamlined developed ones such as in Europe the peculiar vulnerabilities of the MSM population to HIV infection have been recognized and despite our best efforts and success in changing the minds of the general population from viewing AIDS as “the gay cancer”, high rates of infection persist among the MSM population. This has been attributed largely to restrictive social environments which foster a type of disenfranchisement that is conducive to risky sexual behaviours. The response has been to rally for an ease in prohibitive laws and attitudes coupled with targeted interventions in order to give MSM the necessary social capital to illicit behaviour change. There have been tremendous successes in this regard and it is true that despite major challenges the general population and in particular the vulnerable communities are well educated about HIV, AIDS, their own vulnerabilities, and the responsibility of the state to protect them from harm, and yet high rates of infection persist.

In response there has emerged a bit of an impasse between advocates such as myself and Richards about the repeal of the absurdly invasive law which is contained in the Offenses against the Persons Act and known as “the abominable crime of Buggery”. It has become an issue of Epidemiology versus Social Justice.

Persons such as Richards argue, given the worrying facts as I have highlighted above, that to repeal the buggery law would be socially irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, illogical and indicative of a more sinister agenda orchestrated by powerful gays to corrupt public morals. They cite epidemiological evidence as irrefutable proof that MSM are hell-bent on destruction (pun intended); they use examples mockingly equating anal sex and HIV to the cancer-causing effects of smoking cigarettes and asking whether a ban on cigarette smoking should be repealed given these facts if one existed; and they glibly give the impression that AIDS is just recompense for a reckless hedonistic lifestyle. I argue that their thinking is non-critical and that their brains have been infected by the dogma of their bibles and not affected by logic or the rhetoric of equality that the social revolution of the past 50 years has imbued.

As an advocate for social justice I argue that MSM are not infectious disease vectors as implicitly posited by Richards and others of her ilk and that it is evident based on the epidemiological data that we simply have not found that elusive answer or answers that will curb HIV infection generally much less for those among us with intrinsic and systemic vulnerabilities!

Botswana, Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe all have adult infection rates near or above 15% of the general population and no one would ever suggest that Africans should be outlawed or that coitus should be prohibited. Why then are MSM fair game for discrimination?

We must continue to explore the evidently causal relationship between restrictive legal and social environments and the elevated levels of HIV infection among the vulnerable. We must however do so objectively, carefully examining each variable and its complexities so that we can sufficiently articulate to cynics the specifics of how laws such as the buggery law, the hostility of the populace, and the complicity of the government perpetuate vulnerability and exacerbate infection rates among MSM.

In the mean time I advise Richards to take her nose or imagination out of people’s bedrooms and instead be a champion of social justice and the protection of the vulnerable as the good book prescribes.

I am Sincerely,
Brian-Paul N. Welsh
Brianpaul.welsh@gmail.com

I hope I was able to put her back to bed (and that it will be published of course).

Subscribe in a reader

This won't be a long one

Ordinarily I would ignore such arrant rot as I've come to learn that certain types of stupid really cannot be helped. No amount of rhetoric can cure such a dotish mental capacity and I really haven't the energy to expend on making an attempt.

But something about seeing this while scrolling through the photos of a questionably straight acquaintance (and former lust interest) of mine stopped me in my tracks.

That this imbecile would highlight the verse that is said to condemn all forms of male homosexuality while ignoring the dozens of other ridiculously misogynistic and arguably misanthropic laws that precede and follow it defies the definition of a critical mind.

Idiots such as this cannot be said to have a comprehensive understanding of theology and would rather pick and choose the verses that justify their idiotic beliefs! I am completely exasperated! Aargh!!!!!!

Comedy break:

 

  "Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, Allison Janney, John C. Reilly, Marc Shaiman, and many more...  - Americablog

- Watch more Funny Videos at Vodpod.

Selective morality annoys me to world's end.

Lord please grant me the patience to educate instead of decimate the jackasses that bray this nonsense at every opportunity.

Amen.

p.s. I'm cleaning my gun just in case the education won't take.

Subscribe in a reader

Buggery musings

-The Buggery Law as found in the Offenses Against The Person Act

The campaign to decriminalize "the abominable crime" of buggery in Jamaica has been met with many obstacles.

Essentially it has 3 contending issues. One is public health, another is human rights, and the third is state protection of the vulnerable from those that would wish them harm.

The argument to decriminalize the offense on the grounds of it being a breach of the fundamental and inalienable human rights as entrenched by the constitution (primarily through the recently passed Charter of Rights) is perhaps the most compelling argument. I also posit that this was the primary line of reasoning that led to the repeal of sodomy laws in the US states vis a vis the ruling in Lawrence v Texas. The argument is pretty basic in its application which is essentially that sodomy/buggery laws unfairly and unconstitutionally isolate men who have sex with men and in turn creates in them an unapprehended criminal status which leaves them vulnerable to indiscriminate acts of abuse by the state and a hostile public often baying for their blood.

The freedom to love and express that love with another equally amorous human being that is legally allowed to reciprocate these affections is perhaps the most basic of human rights that the buggery law threatens.

We all want to fall in love, make love, and remain in love. The threat of criminal sanction for the expression of same-sex love predisposes men who have sex with men to a live lives on the edge of society with frequent furtive encounters to quench the insatiable thirst for companionship that all humans share. The denial by the state of gay men to legally express that which they feel is their innate human nature is considered by many to be a betrayal of one of the core functions of government which is to recognize and hold sacred the dignity accorded to each and every human being. A law which criminalizes activity which is believed to be innate to the nature of a segment of society can in turn be held to criminalize the identity of such persons and therefore it cannot be compatible with a democratic society resting on several pillars one of which touts the equality of all men under the law irrespective of class, race, or creed. Therefore the spirit of the buggery law is incompatible with democracy and as a result it should be done away with.

I wonder how compelling such an argument is outside of a philosophical context though.

The public health argument, however, is a little more tricky. I've touched this topic a few times before and each time I re-visit it I am more perplexed. At face value given the prevalence rate of HIV in Jamaican MSM it appears almost paradoxical to suggest repealing the law. How can it be that curbing a behaviour that is supposedly intrinsic to a subset of the population with such a high rate of infection that it can be argued (successfully) that it is an infectious disease vector is counter-productive?

The argument which carries over from the human rights perspective is that by making unapprehended criminals of MSM those that would seek to offer medical and other assistance would essentially be accomplices in their desire to carry out a criminal act. So the condom and water-based lubricant as distributed by the health worker becomes contraband and evidence of collusion. Fortunately this is not so in practice but what is to prevent this from happening given the legal predicament of the MSM? The de facto moratorium on arrests of MSM for buggery or the related "gross indecency" save for circumstances of public displays of affection is little comfort since this is not grounded in policy but moreso the evolving sentiments of the public.

If the buggery law is seen as one of many strategies to discourage the practice of anal sex as a high-risk sexual activity within the context of preventing anal sex then it must be brought to a state of compatibility with the human rights approach which makes love and the expression of it an inalienable right of every human being. This would necessitate an admission that anal sex can in fact be consensual as distinct from the "crime of buggery" which would therefore have to be made akin to rape which is non-consensual penetrative sex with a female.

Jamaica has long been averse to this concept of gender neutrality in rape for fear that this admission will render the buggery law illegitimate.

Despite these difficulties it must be that from a public health perspective the government has a commitment to address the peculiar vulnerabilities of MSM to HIV infection. Can this be accomplished with the buggery law as it stands? It would appear that gay rights and the buggery law in its current form are antithetical and incompatible. Therefore if government wishes to address the myriad of concerns specific to men who have sex with men the first thing that needs to be done is to repeal the buggery law and foster an environment of inclusion so as so to plant the seed of trust and mutual respect. Without these there is no way that targeted intervention strategies can be successful.

As it relates to the protection of the vulnerable to those that would wish them harm I speak specifically of same-sex carnal abuse. This is the primary function of the buggery law in its modern dispensation as argued by policy makers. As suggested earlier, a more sophisticated way would be first of all to consider that anal sex can be consensual, that men can consensually have sex with other men, and accordingly that they can also decline to consent. This would require a gender-neutral definition of sex and rape. Therein lies the problem.

What is clear from all of this is that as a people we must have frank and open discussions about this and other taboo issues if we ever expect to progress socially. We cannot shy away from such discussions and at the same time say we are working toward modernity. This is foolish.

The buggery law is an embarrassing colonial retention that must be re-visited urgently before it brings us any more embarrassment in this new globalized world.




Subscribe in a reader

Racism: Get over it???

Que le fuq?????

I'm currently in the midst of a heated exchange with a former school mate of mine who is of Burmese descent and is in Jamaica probably because her family fled persecution in what is now Myanmar and chose to settle on the other side of the world. This is someone that has experienced ethnic genocide at least to a limited extent and should be sensitive to matters of race, ethnicity, and the power struggles between cultures battling for dominance.

Her advice that I "get over it" in relation to racism comes from a discussion we were having among friends about Miss France's objection to Miss Angola winning the Ms. Universe pageant which was recently concluded in Sao Paolo, Brazil.



How could you deny this woman???

Miss France believes the lovely Leila Lopes was dowdy, lacked personality, and insinuated that her win as an Angolan in a contest held in Brazil (both are former Portuguese colonies) was more than a coincidence.



Given that Miss Angola is naturally beautiful, humble, intelligent, statuesque, eloquent, and poised, it comes as a surprise that Miss France would find fault except if one relegates her to the category of just being a sore loser. But that categorization I believe is intellectually dishonest and ignores the crux of this issue.

For me, Miss France's objections are nothing more than veiled racism. She does not believe that this black African woman is deserving of her win by virtue of the fact that she is a black African woman. She is basically saying that Ms. Angola won the pageant because of some sort of affirmative action.

Seeing things in this way should not be dismissed as frivolity.

Interestingly, by pointing out what to me is obvious based on my discernment of what has been said and unsaid I have been labelled racist. RACIST!

What arrant rot!

Sensitivity to the way racism is expressed in this politically correct supposedly post-racial world is not an admission of the latent racism of the one that notices it. It is seeing with both eyes open and not peering through a lens of illusion or naivete.

An Asian immigrant telling me as a black Jamaican that I should "get over" racism offends me to my core; and the accusation that I may be racist simply because I find the utterances of a white French woman distasteful (especially in light of France's continued hostility toward West African immigrants) adds insult to injury.

Discussions of Race and Racism should never be dismissed. We are not living in a post-racial world and racism is very much alive.

Noticing it, or at least being honest enough to speak about it, is not evidence of latent racism and such an accusation is racist in and of itself. Black people have every right to discuss such issues where there is merit and should not be denied the right to ventilate such issues for fear of being seen as hyper-sensitive and racist.

Such is the sinister nature of the architects and those that choose to perpetuate racist ideals. They want you to believe that racism does not exist so that they can continue to subjugate those that are outside 'acceptable' standards.

I for one will never stop noticing their evil deeds.


Subscribe in a reader

Let he who is without sin...

I was a bit miffed by the tone of the pronouncements of my dear friend Maurice Tomlinson at his latest stand for tolerance in Montego Bay.

He and his colleagues staged what the Gleaner described as a 'peaceful protest' outside The Hilton Rose Hall, site of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network, Caribbean Cytometry & Analytical Society (CCAS), Centers for Disease Control Third Joint Meeting and Eighth CCAS HIV/AIDS Workshop.

They were protesting the seemingly deliberate exclusion of Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and organizations that work closely with them such as JFLAG and JASL from this important workshop.

I must admit that upon first hearing of this conference I was taken aback by its scale as at face value it seemed to spring out of nowhere, larger than life. I therefore expected that all the major players would be scrambling to participate. It was a surprise to learn that they were left out of the process.

The article went on to say:

The workshop was held under the banner, "Harmonising Quality Clinical Care and Laboratory Diagnostics on Behalf of Persons Most at Risk of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean, however, international NGO, AIDS-Free World, and local partners from Jamaica AIDS Support for Life and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays were not invited to attend.

"No members of the Jamaican MSM community were invited to participate in this conference, despite the 2009 UNAIDS findings that the HIV prevalence rate among Jamaican MSM is 32 per cent against 1.6 per cent in the general population," lamented Maurice Tomlinson, legal adviser, Marginalised AIDS-Free World Group.

Tomlinson criticised the organisers, stating that the way they had gone about the workshop flew in the face of the internationally accepted principle requiring the Greater Involvement of Persons Living with HIV/AIDS in designing and implementing HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support interventions.

"While we hope the conference participants enjoyed their stay at the luxurious resort, we, therefore, question their commitment to the populations they purport to serve," said Tomlinson.

Que le fuq???

While I agree with his position in light of the facts, I can't help but point out that this is a criticism that is levelled at JFLAG and JASL quite frequently and that for many (myself included) I think this is a time for the major players to pause and reflect and remove the beam from their own eye.

The huge regional MSM community consultation that the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC) recently concluded at the Iberostar was by all reports a grand holiday for technocrats and NGO administrators and deliberately excluded those providing the true front-line services, including JFLAG's own crisis intervention officer with her immense practical knowledge of what is happening on the streets of Jamaica. CVC also deliberately excluded the street boys, the transgenders, the entertainment promoters (and I must disclose that I fall into this category lest I be accused of having a secret axe to grind) and the other allies that make up the rainbow coalition.

What kind of planning and strategizing can possibly take place without the input of those that live on the streets and do not live in comfortable offices or their passports?

How can the strategic plans emerging from such a regional meeting be worth the paper they are printed on if they exclude the input of those with first-hand knowledge of the major issues influencing the vulnerabilities of LGBTs?

These are the kind of questions we need answers to.

Because if the community is not satisfied that our 'leaders' understand the issues in their entirety, how then can we support a campaign for them to have their voice amplified at the highest level?

p.s. I guess the cat is out of the bag based on the headline "Gays Stage Peaceful Stand Against Discrimination". No more hiding behind AIDS Free World.

Subscribe in a reader

What is the role of J-FLAG?

This question might seem utterly ridiculous given what you may feel you know but pause and reflect for a moment about what the organization represents to you, what you feel their role ought to be, and what they really do or are doing.

There exists a chasm between the expectations of the LGBT community (and even the Heteros ) of J-Flag and how J-Flag defines itself.

Indeed, the J-Flag of old had much more zeal in its public engagements, and the impression given through the smoke and mirrors was that this was a substantive lobby group with a clear position, and explicitly defined roles. They were the mouth piece for an invisible, disenfranchised community that wanted legitimacy through diplomacy and the provocation of critical thinking on the subject of sexual minority status in the hypocritical society in which they existed. They seemed to stand firmly beside their constituents and would defend and protect them by any means necessary including legal challenges, emergency housing assistance, and bare-faced public representation.

Based on dialogue with its current Executive Director I am left with the lingering feeling that J-Flag in its current dispensation, a decade after its conception, is an advocacy body with an affinity for government policy, intermittent interventions in the electronic media, building networks with international civil society organizations, and nothing more.

I will forgive the unfortunately inarticulate expression of the role and objectives of the organization given that the question was posed in a somewhat combative community consultation which had the ED in defense mode. However, the sentiment persists in the community that J-Flag is not fulfilling its role as the only lobby group acting on behalf of the LGBT community.

The acts of civil disobedience by the street boys that we have witnessed in the past few days in response to the executive decision taken to ban poorly behaving homeless MSMs from the JFLAG and Jamaica AIDS Support compound are but the tip of the iceberg in relation to the resentment the community has for JFLAG.

According to their website:

J-FLAG’s mission is to work towards a Jamaican society in which the Human Rights and Equality of Lesbians, All-Sexuals, and Gays are guaranteed. To foster the acceptance and enrichment of the lives of same-gender-loving persons who have been, and continue to be, an integral part of society. J-FLAG holds the vision to move forward in a spirit of oneness, love, dignity and respect towards the establishment of a Jamaica, and world, devoid of prejudice, injustice, discrimination and oppression. And, furthermore, to ensure the human rights of Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, as set out in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

J-FLAG, among other things:

1. provides support in the event of a crisis or impending crisis; emergency housing assistance, counselling and assistance with medical bills

2. does significant personal development and community building in the gay community;

3. offers counseling and referral services to gay people and their families;

4. has consultations and collaborations with noted local and international figures and human rights/health/political interest groups, in the process of working for constitutional and other legislative changes;

5. has made written submissions to the Joint Select Committee of the Houses of Parliament for the inclusion of “Sexual Orientation” as a basis on which the Constitution of Jamaica prohibits discrimination;

6. has provided documentation for asylum cases based on sexual discrimination and violence in Canada, Great Britain and the United States;

7. maintains a library and archive of resource for academic research

The major challenge now is that the community demands front-line services that JFLAG is not capable of or interested in providing. The staff, largely administrators with the glaring absence of social workers or psychologists, is naturally going to call the police on rowdy and violent MSMs because they do not know how to handle such a scenario. They are not prepared.

Where JFLAG's board of governors has failed its staff and clients is by essentially giving them baskets to carry water. They have not birthed an organization capable of providing front-line services and neither have they groomed the organization to fulfill this role in its 10 years of existence. They as the architects for the type of advocacy JFLAG is supposed to execute have allowed the organization to hobble into redundancy.

What needs to happen now is a series of frank and unavoidably uncomfortable conversations about the present and future role of the organization in light of the fact that the community it intends to serve has in large part grown disenchanted, and in some cases bitterly so.

JFLAG must define itself, its roles and the type of advocacy it has the capacity to carry out.

One major criticism of the organization is that its architects have access to, and jealously guard, a large network of international NGOs and donor agencies that turn the cogs of HIV and sexual minority rights advocacy all over the world. They are the gate keepers. The sentiment expressed is that dissenting voices are forcibly silenced or black listed, that the status quo is ruthlessly enforced, and that the business of HIV and LGBT rights is one that does not always act in the best interest of the most vulnerable and more often than not takes economic decisions rather than moral ones. In other words, if they say they cannot do something they are lying to your face. They are not saying they cannot, they are saying they will not.

That appears to be the general consensus on the ground as it relates to this homeless MSM issue. The idea that there is no money to tackle the problem is inexcusable and it really is a lack of will and initiative that lands us in this predicament, which of course speaks to the sinister self-serving attitude that the gate-keepers are accused of having.

What do we do now?

I maintain that either JFLAG holds itself accountable and responsible for the advancement of the rights of the LGBT community, including the provision of the front-line services that they demand, OR remain as back-seat advocates while fostering an environment of collaboration, inclusion, and the development of alternate voices that can carry out the functions that they are unable to.

If the former is to be realized it will be a revolution, a mutiny, an earthquake, and a complete overhaul of the organization and how things are done. Most observers are very cynical that this will ever take place given the personalities that are involved.

Therefore the latter is a more likely reality to come to fruition... though the same cynicism persists for many.

Very interesting times are ahead.

Subscribe in a reader

Reaping what we sow

This has been a very gay week in the local news. The street boys have been featured in all of the media outlets with "stunning" revelations coming from the Chairman of Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL) revealing that as far as JASL and JFLAG are concerned the onus for the care and protection of the "lost boys" (as I like to call them) lies with the government and not with the organizations that ought to specifically cater for this niche.

I am somewhat sympathetic to this position as I was around when the first programme for the the street boys was conceived. It was well-intentioned though admittedly clumsy in its execution. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a growing problem that was ignored by the board of JASL because they were ill-equipped and ignorant of the issues and were frightened by the anti-social behaviour of the first group of boys and men. As a result the programme was brought to an abrupt halt, forcing the boys back on to the street, causing an Executive Director to resign, and sterilizing a compound of rowdy elements and their sympathizers.

This news story has forced the issues into the public domain after festering for two years and I'm positive that it has brought great discomfort to those involved, though embarrassment is an emotion I am not sure is applicable given that it is usually born of regret.

I was moved by the words of one of the boys though stained by resentment, albeit understandably so:

"There is no way you can take on 20 to 30 gay persons from different backgrounds, different homes, with different personalities and expect them to behave perfect. It can't go so...You are going to have fights, you are going to have fuss, you are going to have quarrels, 'cause even in a normal family that happens. You understand? There is no way everything will go smoothly," he said.

This brings out the crucial point that many of us have been belaboring all along: For a programme to be successful it must be well designed.

It is good that these issues are being ventilated. Now it is time for roles and responsibilities to be honestly determined and capacities to be critically and truthfully assessed.

This issue of homeless MSM is truly a quagmire but not one that cannot be navigated to reach terra firma..

Let us see what develops and what role we can play in that regard.

Subscribe in a reader

Don't we all have a black grandmother anyway?

The idea of the black grandmother in the proverbial closet for most Mexicans who would consider themselves Mestizo or even White is a topic explored by Professor Henry Louis Gates in this powerful episode of the "Black in Latin America" series on PBS.

The series of documentaries gives a fascinating insight into the definitions of race in this region, and as a Jamaican it is most informative given that our own concepts of race are coloured by our unique colonial experience and in modern times exist more within the context of a class dichotomy than overt ethnic differences, at least in politically correct discourse. In fact very often the mere mention of racial differences is seen as impolite and crass as we are said to exist in a post-racial democracy and live by the motto "Out of Many, One People".

Every black Jamaican has at least one White, Indian, Chinese, or Middle-Eastern grandparent or great-grandparent. It is this diversity in our bloodlines that we feel makes us unique and distinct of course from Africans (and even Haitians but that is a whole 'nother post).

The fact that I have ancestors of other races does not affect my racial identity in the way that Gates posits that this admission will change the Mexican's concept of self and that the black grandmother is therefore hidden in the closet out of shame. Perhaps in the Latin American colonial experience, distinct as it was from our own in as far as the Spanish had their own modus operandi, blackness was seen as much more of a blight or a malady than it was seen relative to the British colonial experience.

Perhaps in the British colonial experience being a black person with some measure of non-black heritage was a mark of superiority, of civility, of racial evolution and ascent from the impenetrable bush of the dark continent into the cobble stone streets of British genteel modernity. A sort of taming of the uncivilized African from a eugenic perspective. And conversely the "white Jamaican", a social invention as distinct from an ethnically white person, sees his blackness as a necessary evil born of necessity. Some mixed race Jamaicans that fall into the category of "brown", the Jamaican equivalent of Mestizo or Mulatto, are seemingly proud of the fact that they are "mongrels" though this is said with a smiling almost tongue-in-cheek tone which to me sends a message that they are subconsciously ashamed of their inherent blackness.

The Mestizo in the Spanish colonial experience became a distinct racial identity in and of itself and was separate from its blackness whether for shame or because of economic advantage.

Maybe it is an internalized inferiority complex that makes a black person in Jamaica proud of their European or Asian heritage and conversely makes a Mexican (irrespective of hue) uncomfortable with their African ancestry : Black < White

I am very aware of the fact that despite some of the 'softer' more Eur-Asian pheno-typical features I have acquired through heredity that I am a black man. I am a black man of burnt caramel complexion with slightly lighter than normal eyes, a straight nose, with relatively close Indian and European ancestry and a very British surname, but I am a black man nonetheless.

This is not because I believe necessarily in the one-drop system of racial identification which says that African blood sullies and dominates, but really because that is what I see in the mirror: thick lips, coarse hair, and dark skin.

My Indian and White fore-parents don't change my personal racial identity and I believe that if it did it would speak to a discomfort I have with my blackness which would cause me to place emphasis on the fact that I'm not a "pure" black. I say this because interestingly I have heard people say this very thing to try and explain away their Africanness while trying to assimilate into a non-black social environment.

This is why the documentary resonated so much with me. The shame of blackness is something I have witnessed and can empathize with being brought up in a culture that values non-blackness or sees non-black blood as advantageous. I still have to shake the culture of my high school years where the only pretty girls were the mulattas with hair that curls into long bouncy ringlets when wet...and whose hair is always wet because when it dries out they look like your average light-skinned black girl.

Jamaica is not post-racial and these kinds of discussions are ones we need to have among ourselves if we are ever to truly understand why we are one people out of many ethnicities.

I really wish Gates had done such a documentary on Jamaica.

Subscribe in a reader

The Pink House: A Beacon of Hope

It is a cool evening in the neighbourhood of Punda on the Dutch Antillean island of Curacao in the southern Caribbean. The crimson sunset dances across the cobalt waves that crash into this arid island surrounded by deep sea which is cooled by a soft breeze spiraling upward from Venezuela.

Curacao is one of few places in the Antilles with an active connection to The Netherlands and this history and present association has created a political and social atmosphere that is largely free of the psychological trauma that the Spanish and British colonies struggle with to this day. It is simply not the way of the Dutch. That is not to say that there is no racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other schisms that have been ubiquitous in all societies leading up to modernity, but there is a marked difference of culture in the Dutch societies when compared to the British colonies such as Jamaica.

Casa Rosada or simply The Pink House is a project managed and supervised by FOKO (Fondashon Orguyo Korsou), and was established in the summer of 2010. It is the Caribbean’s first gay cultural centre and despite its novelty it is already proving itself to be much more than just a symbol standing silently in an isolated and placid Caribbean society, but a beacon of hope and inspiration for the millions around the region that live as second-class citizens in these former slave colonies, and also validation that such an experiment can serve as the foundation for the creation of similar spaces elsewhere in the region.

The Pink House as a community centre is not a lazy place where young queens hang out and watch TV. There is no rainbow flag at the front or disco music blaring into the streets. It is a cozy pink casita at the end of a quiet street in a section of town once notorious for sex work, in fact, the building itself was once a brothel, a history that staff and volunteers freely share as we talk about how important this unassuming single-storey building at the end of a lonely street is as part of the gay movement in the Caribbean.

Dudley Ferdinandus is the bubbly programme manager with an almost prophetic vision of where the gay movement in the Caribbean will go, how we will get there, and what will block progress. His down-to-earth approach and almost maternal instincts are tremendous assets for him as a counselor and default “house-mother” for the Pink House where his experience in HIV/AIDS advocacy and in counselling are combined to provide a service that is unmatched.

The programmes at this community centre are not necessarily novel in terms of their origin; however it is the application of these ideas that makes the difference. As Dudley points out, the prevention message is out there and MSMs can recite all that needs to be done to stay negative, and yet they are still becoming infected. Addressing this sad irony is what motivates him as a counselor to reach those that need advice so that the behaviors that contribute to this high infection rate despite three decades of awareness can be curbed.

Being a small island state Curacao can in some respects be viewed as a microcosm symbolizing the general problems of other Caribbean countries although at face value, its well-paved streets and genteel European ambience may say otherwise. Issues of homophobia do in fact exist in the small towns and settlements scattered across the island, and also there is a frequency of unchecked immigration of sex workers from South America and the rest of the Caribbean since Curacao has legalized sex work and a legitimate sex work industry, with the famous brothel Campo Allegre offering exotic females from all corners of the globe in a resort atmosphere.

The drivers for HIV infection among vulnerable populations exist and are just as stinging as elsewhere so therefore relaxed social mores and a supportive legal framework do not necessarily equate to a utopian existence for sexual minorities as Dudley is quick to point out. There may not be the threat of physical violence as is the case with other Caribbean nations, but there is the nagging unsaid notion that gays are second-class citizens that ought not to get too uppity. The current struggle for Curacao to recognize gay marriage as is institutionalized in Holland is an example of this.

One mustn’t discount the significance of this former Dutch colony as this will prevent them from coming to a greater understanding of HIV prevention and the LGBT rights movement in the Caribbean as there are many lessons to be learnt, as the fine example of The Pink House reveals. In fact, it is in stepping away from the noise that persists in this side of the Caribbean that one is better able to put the issues into perspective and come to a more comprehensive understanding.

Interviews with Dudley:

Part 1

Dudley pt 1 by brianpaul

Part 2

Dudley pt 2 by brianpaul

Subscribe in a reader

Kay Osbourne reacts to accusations of prejudice

Instinctively I feel almost compelled to react to Kay Osbourne's insight into the decision not to air JFLAG's "Unconditional Love" PSA. I have had to pause and reflect though, as I realize that as an activist I am almost wired for defensiveness and as a result often end up missing opportunities for alliances, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

I have always had great respect for Television Jamaica's General Manager as a Jamaican woman of class and substance. She is the one that introduced more local programming and guided TVJ into the formation of its identity as it emerged from the shadow of its colonial predecessor the Jamaica Broadcasting Commission. Hers was a job met with much resistance because JBC held a very fond place in the hearts of every Jamaican born before circa 1990 who were content to be infiltrated by images from the metro-pole and we were ashamed of most things Jamaican, save for cricket and football.

I am not put off by Kay Osborne's position because I see it as an opportunity for dialogue that was absent before now. She and her colleagues realize that now is the time for frank and open discussions about issues of intolerance and the place of the gay community in a Jamaica that supposedly espouses the motto "Out of Many, One People".

Now is the time to hold her to task for her declaration of willingness to participate in such a dialogue as a media manager and agent of change.

Let us not drop the ball this time.

Subscribe in a reader

Much ado about nothing

So as expected JFLAG's "Unconditional Love" PSA has generated much furor in the bible mafia. They are incensed that people could be speaking of unconditional love (you know that concept espoused by Christ himself) in relation to the sodomites.

That a good uptown brown lady like Christine Straw is advocating for inclusion of this filth is appalling to them.

"I am prepared to be loving and compassionate to all persons, irrespective of their class or creed or persuasion, but that love and compassion to all and sundry will not stop me from speaking the truth in love as I see the truth,” said Dawes, a former journalist.

“As innocuous and as innocent as that public service announcement might appear, it is part of a wider plan by militant homosexuals to gradually desensitise Jamaicans to homosexuality, so that homosexual behaviour and practice can become mainstream in Jamaica,” asserted the pastor.

Really???

Then RJR group has rejected the ad on shaky grounds with their managing director offering this gem of logic:

"They are presenting the particular ad as a public service announcement and in our business a public service announcement has specific meaning; it is not necessarily something that you would pay for. But even where you pay for PSAs the station would retain the right to determine if this is something that it would like to be identified with, because then normally we would say that it is done in association or it is supported by the particular station," Allen said. The station, he added, was not consulted or had any input in creating the pro-gay advertisement.

This is not altogether surprising as most of us have varying levels of cynicism when it comes to the advancement of progressive agendas in Jamaica's social and media landscape, however the candour and seeming earnest belief of his own bullshit is particularly striking in this year of our lord 2011.

Don't get me wrong, I honestly never expected the ad to air without a fight, but I also never expected TVJ to be the one to reject the ad especially since I view them in many respects as one of our more progressive media entities.

So now what?

Well it's pretty obvious that CVM will not want to take up this hot potato PSA and JFLAG will be kept very busy for the next few weeks. So the ad will remain in the viral media of YouTube and Facebook and JFLAG have another battle story to tell to the donors to get more funding, and so the cycle continues.

Who wins? Certainly not these guys.

I'm not even thinking about speaking publicly about this injustice because part of me really believes that perhaps JFLAG got ahead of themselves with this particular push, but then again sob stories are very lucrative in this industry of HIV and Human Rights advocacy so perhaps this was part of the plan.

Time will tell.

Subscribe in a reader