Tuesday, October 25, 2011

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

5 comments:

Marc said...

Brian, while i naturally agree with everything you said, i'll make two observations re the human rights argument.

(1) In terms of the philosophy of it - your argument proceeds on the assumption that homosexuality is an "innate" human nature. Of course I agree, but what of those who think it's a learned behaviour or worse: a state of demonic possession (u know the religious sheep out here believe that.)

To those people your argument means nothing. Now clearly those people are wrong and need their head examined - but how do we prove that they are wrong? We can convince some with scientific theories that there may be a genetic factor to sexuality, but the problem is that the jury is still out on that. And some of them you just cannot convince, because until the day of judgment homosexuality cannot be "natural" - because they have internalized their learned homophobia.

I say all this, to demonstrate that from a philisophical perspective your argument is only as persausive as the audience to which it is addressed. And unfortunately the Jamaican audience - with its poor human rights record- is not particularly receptive to your human rights argument.

(2)In terms of the law - it is ironic that your human rights argument will get no where because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights & Freedoms. A document meant to be an enlightened and progressive human rights instrument is almost not worth the paper it is printed on.

This is because after guaranteeing equality before the law under section 13(2)(c), it goes on to preserve the validity of laws relating to sexual offences in force before the Charter. So the effect is that the very old, colonial buggery law is saved and remains valid by virtue of section 13(12) of the Charter.

So even if the Supreme Court were to agree with your human rights argument that the buggery law is unequal because it unfairly criminalizes a class of persons, section 13(12) of the Charter prevents any court, even the Privy Council, from overturning the buggery law on that basis.

In effect, Jamaican homosexuals cannot hope for justice from the courts - for now that can only come from Parliament repealing the buggery law. And we all know that unless and until the society changes - no MP is gonna commit political suicide for us. The upshot of this is that legal change is stymied until the society evolves over the next 20 or 30 years. Sad!

I want to end this on a positive note though, which is that I read somewhere that the UK is linking it's Aid & Development policy for third world countries to their human rights track record. They even have something called "aid sanctions" - which is a cut in foreign aid for those countries who are persistent human rights abusers. I think America and the EU should adopt this policy and apply it to Jamaica. May be then the societal change will take 5 minutes rather than 50 years! :)

mark said...

"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." I am wondering if Jamaica has ever seriously prosecuted men for buggery or gross indecency.

mark said...

Marc is right: money talks.

Incog Nito said...

Thanks a million Marc. I did ponder the same things you raised because I remembered an article by Ian Boyne a few years ago where he essentially rubbished the notion that homosexuality could be innate and natural and that coz one may feel that a behavior is natural to them doesn't mean that it is in fact biologically or psychosocially so and that we may be rationalizing our sexuality foolishly by relying on how natural and normal it feels to us when in fact it is neither natural or normal in the broader scheme of things. Unfortunately so as not to come across like I'm trying to win everybody I have to take a position and that is the one i choose. How to justify it is the hard part because it is a very philosophical argument that is not necessarily grounded in fact

Anonymous said...

60% of Americans favoured legalization of same sex relations when Lawrence v Texas was struck down.

As informed gay people we know too well the advances made in other countries. What we fail to acknowledge explicitly sometimes is that these advances did not take place in a vacuum. Gays and lesbians in America have been at the forefront of a culture war for decades. People have been coming out to their co-workers, friends and families for decades. Gay scholars have been writing for decades. We in Jamaica want the results of gay-rights advocacy without the decades of strategic, sustained advocacy. And it's not going to happen.

Brian-Paul, take a look at the graphs below. Perhaps you've seen them before. I don't think we've been able to document similar trends in Jamaica. Opinions that homosexual relations are morally wrong seem pretty static. Notice how in America during the 1980's popular opinion on this matter was also pretty stable.

To the question of whether homosexual relations should be legal, opposition was highest at the height of the HIV epidemic which disproportionately affected the gay community. It seems ridiculous that we think we'll get anywhere with the epidemiological argument. It is clear to me that people will have the greatest opposition to liberalizing gay sex when the link between anal sex and HIV is as strong as it is now.

This approach (including the suggestion that donor countries should decrease aid to countries with shoddy human rights records) seems to be the most expedient, but success will mean little if we don't dedicate ourselves to changing public opinion.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/gss1.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/gss4.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/gal3.html