Why Fight The Buggery Law? (Gleaner Letter) .............

Another letter comes with the cute insinuation of "the gay lifestyle" used as the limited feature as rightly looking at homosexuality as ones sexual orientation is too much to do and will lesson their anti gay and anti buggery position so the intellectually dishonest route is used as it is certainly not ignorance on the part of the writer here given how the points are postured here.

Have a read of the this crap and see it for yourself. Buggery and male homosexuality are not really synonymous and to suggest that all gay and bisexual men are are just ass hunters is also a misnomer on this writer's part while deliberately leaving out hetero-anal sex as well bearing in mind it is not the woman who would be charged by the penetrator provided she (the penetratee) files a complaint, it must also be noted that most cases that go to full trial involve a younger "victim" in a homo-peado set of circumstances that lead to a conviction. Consenting adults for the most part even when caught in the act tend to have their cases languish in court until they are adjourned sine die as the arresting officers  cease attending the sessions from as early as the premliminary hearing despite subpoenas sent out for officers to attend.

I should know I went through it in 1996 through to 1999 and I still reside in Jamaica and I certainly am not interested in children for sex.

Why Fight The Buggery Law?

THE EDITOR, Sir:

THE RECENT and ongoing controversy over Jamaica's retention of the buggery law has made it quite plain that opposing forces have coalesced around debating this law because of what it stands for. It is obvious that the law has become symbolic of Jamaica's past recognition of a 'sane' and 'elevated lifestyle' for humans, especially our men! But today it has become Jamaica's last symbolic roadblock to the 'legal' acceptance of the gay lifestyle for men especially. It, therefore, becomes obvious why the heated debate centres around it, and why the gay-rights lobby is so incensed against its retention.

One must be ever mindful that the law not only directly prohibits the abominable practice of a male human penetrating an animal in the anus (this aspect no one disputes), but also prohibits a male penetrating another male for sexual gratification. The primary intention was to prohibit the male of the specie, the natural head of families, to engage in so-called 'sexual activities' with animals and with another male; activities that could not naturally perpetuate the species biologically, and which would debase the male as the head of a 'normal' family.

NATURAL LAW

When the buggery law was passed, the head of Jamaica's government, the British monarch, was also the head of a Christian denomination, the Anglican Church (a fact that has not changed, despite Britain's recent posturing)! It was only natural that the buggery law passed by Britain itself (how ironic) also had links to the prohibition of sodomy in the biblical context. But never forget that all major cultures from time immemorial, no matter the religion involved (whether Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, orthodox Christianity, etc.), have frowned upon buggery as unnatural and humanly degrading.

It was not until in recent times that buggery laws were being seen as oppressive. And why? 'New age' thinking, increasing endorsement of sexual debauchery, and the invasion of libertine morals have been the main reasons why people have been wanting to cast off the 'shackles' of good sense and good taste in the field of human sexuality, and to underpin their desires with so-called 'human-rights' propaganda.

It may be true that the buggery law in and of itself is not an effective means of preventing or controlling sexual diseases related to the gay lifestyle, neither does it necessarily keep in check the growing numbers of those opting for the gay lifestyle, but if even for the symbolic message involved, I insist they should be maintained.

Once that law is repealed, it is simply a signal that the Jamaican society has made the first step in legalising and accepting as 'normal' the gay lifestyle. The truthfulness of the foregoing is evident in the rhetoric of the gay lobby against the buggery law. For instance, in a letter published in the November 14, 2011 Gleaner, one gay-rights lobbyist, Brian-Paul Welsh, made plain: "I would never propose that repealing the [buggery] law would serve as a panacea [to having gays accessing health care]; in fact, it is merely the first step in the right direction for government in the creation of a supportive social environment."

Notice that, to this lobbyist, it matters not that in countries where homosexuality is legal (like in France) the HIV rates among gays are still alarmingly high, still growing, and out of control, despite their having access to preventative health care. But this lobbyist closes his eyes to the truth and still postulates the non sequitur viewpoint that repealing the buggery law is "the first step" in the society creating a "supportive environment" for gays. So, education and constant reminder of safe sex through the media is not the way to go, but repealing a law that would make no difference really if gays (just like in France) still ignore common sense and education about the proper health practices needed in a high-risk sexual behaviour.

But the above-quoted statement of diatribe from gay lobbyist Brian-Paul Welsh is not only ironic, suggestive, and serves as a warning, but, more important, it fully captures the essence of why the buggery law is so hated by the gay lobbyists. Why? Because they are not so much a hindrance to health care for gays (the facts speak eloquently against that reality elsewhere), but the buggery law is the society's last bastion against the outright invasion of the gay lifestyle. It is what spoils the party in the gay lifestyle making its first real successful step in Jamaica. That is why the buggery law has now become a prime target for the gay movement.

SYMBOLIC RED FLAG

Obviously, after realising the first successful step of removing this legal obstacle, the next step, after being successful at helping to repeal the buggery law, will be to insist on imposing the gay lifestyle as 'normal', and hence it should not even be considered as a subject of criticism. Thus, the freedom of expression of the majority, the freedom of religious expression, and the public expression of that belief will then be infringed by the 'over-protected' minority. This has been the pattern elsewhere. It is plain, and it's where the gay-rights movement is headed in Jamaica. But before the gay-lobby agenda can get to that stage, it must be successful at removing the buggery law. Hence, the buggery law has become the symbolic red flag in a game of who can capture and retain the flag so the opposing side loses the game. Thus the moral majority must fight long and hard to keep it, legally, with pen and voice (not with sticks and stones), for as long as we can. God help us in Jamaica as the spirit of Sodom and Gomorrah seeks to invade our land!

DERRICK GILLESPIE
ddgillespie@live.com

ENDS

My two cents continued;

So what if there is an attempt to legitimize the relational aspects of a same sex relation that does not mean that gay and bisexual men are suddenly going to drop their pants in public and plug each other or that outward displays of affection may necessarily obtain as we are not a nation of such a practice even from a heterosexual standpoint, straight couples are often looked upon with puzzled expressions when they do play in public except for selected spots such as Devon house and other open spaces though opened offer privacy for such romantic gestures between persons.

This fear and paranoia of homosexuality suddenly trumping heterosexuality thus overtaking it and annihilate such persons with that orientation is ridiculous. Why have a law that is hard to prove except via a cumbersome doctor's report that specifies several items to be present before a charge can stick? the parties involved also have to go to a medical facility of the police's choosing to have the relevant tests done prior to the report being prepared (bias can set in) and which include the doctor actually inserting a finger in the rectum of the "victim" and the perpetrator as well as swabs of body fluid samples taken from the top of the urethra to look for spermatozoa cells, spermicide if a condom is used and so on.

It will do some of these opposers to buggery apprise themselves of the facts and what obtains in such cases before penning poorly thought out letters. It is this homo-negative stance that feeds homophobia in Jamaica and we are relegated to wrong doers.

Additional reading from Wikipedia:

In English law, "buggery" was first used in the Buggery Act 1533, while Section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, entitled "Sodomy and Bestiality", defined punishments for "the abominable Crime of Buggery, committed either with Mankind or with any Animal". The definition of "buggery" was not specified in these or any statute, but rather established by judicial precedent. Over the years the courts have defined buggery as including either:

anal intercourse by a man with a man or woman, or
vaginal intercourse by either a man or a woman with an animal,

but not any other form of "unnatural intercourse". The implication being that anal sex with an animal would not constitute buggery. Such a case has not, to date, come before the courts of a common law jurisdiction in any reported decision. However, it seems highly improbable that a person would be exculpated of a crime associated with sex with animals only by reason of the fact that penetration involved the anus rather than the vagina.

At common law consent was not a defence; nor was the fact that the parties were married. In the UK the punishment for buggery was reduced from hanging to life imprisonment by the Offences against the Person Act 1861. As with the crime of rape, buggery required that penetration must have occurred, but ejaculation is not necessary.

Most common law jurisdictions have now modified the law to permit anal sex between consenting adults. Hong Kong did so retroactively in 1990, barring prosecution for "crimes against nature" committed before the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1990 entered into force except those that would still have constituted a crime if they had been done thereafter. In the England and Wales, homosexual buggery was decriminalised in 1967 with a higher age of consent. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 fully removed buggery as a concept in British law, introducing an equal age of consent and not differentiating between vaginal and anal sex.

In the Republic of Ireland, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993 abolished the offence of "buggery between persons". For some years prior to 1993, criminal prosecution had not been made for buggery between consenting adults. The 1993 Act created an offence of "buggery with a person under the age of 17 years", penalised similar to statutory rape, which also had 17 years as the age of consent. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 replaced this offence with "defilement of a child", encompassing both "sexual intercourse" and "buggery". Buggery with an animal is still unlawful under Section 61 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. In 2012, a man was convicted of this offence for supplying a dog in 2008 to a woman who had intercourse with it and died.

Peace and tolerance

H