The Safe House 2009 Pilot for LGBTQ Youth Explained & more

In response to numerous requests for more information on the defunct Safe House Pilot Project that was to address the growing numbers of displaced and homeless LGBTQ Youth in New Kingston in 2007/8/9, a review of the relevance of the project as a solution, the possible avoidance of present issues with some of its previous residents if it were kept open.
Recorded June 12, 2013; also see from the former Executive Director named in the podcast more background on the project: HERE also see the beginning of the issues from the closure of the project: The Quietus ……… The Safe House Project Closes and The Ultimatum on December 30, 2009

Thursday, November 29, 2012

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 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.


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.


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!



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



Aphrodite's P.R.I.D.E Jamaica, APJ launched their website

Aphrodite's P.R.I.D.E Jamaica, APJ launched their website on December 1 2015 on World AIDS Day where they hosted a docu-film and after discussions on the film Human Vol 1

audience members interacting during a break in the event

film in progress

visit the new APJ website HERE

See posts on APJ's work: HERE (newer entries will appear first so scroll to see older ones)


CVM TV carried a raid and subsequent temporary blockade exercise of the Shoemaker Gully in the New Kingston district as the authorities respond to the bad eggs in the group of homeless/displaced or idling MSM/Trans persons who loiter there for years.

Question is what will happen to the population now as they struggle for a roof over their heads and food etc. The Superintendent who proposed a shelter idea (that seemingly has been ignored by JFLAG et al) was the one who led the raid/eviction.

Also see:

the CVM NEWS Story HERE on the eviction/raid taken by the police

also see a flashback to some of the troubling issues with the populations and the descending relationships between JASL, JFLAG and the displaced/homeless GBT youth in New Kingston: Rowdy Gays Strike - J-FLAG Abandons Raucous Homosexuals Misbehaving In New Kingston

also see all the posts in chronological order by date from Gay Jamaica Watch HERE and GLBTQ Jamaica HERE


see previous entries on LGBT Homelessness from the Wordpress Blog HERE

May 22, 2015, see: MP Seeks Solutions For Homeless Gay Youth In New Kingston

War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this?

War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this?

A war of words has ensued between gay lawyer (AIDSFREEWORLD) Maurice Tomlinson and anti gay activist Dr Wayne West as both accuse each other of lying or being dishonest, when deception has been neatly employed every now and again by all concerned, here is the post from Dr West's blog

This is laughable to me as both gentleman have broken the ethical lines of advocacy respectively repeatedly especially on HIV/AIDS and on legal matters concerning LGBTQ issues

The evidence is overwhelming readers/listeners, you decide.

Other Entries you can check out

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Homeless MSM Challenges and relationships with agencies overview ........

In a shocking move JFLAG decided not to invite or include homeless MSM in their IDAHO activity for 2013 thus leaving many in wonderment as to the reason for their existence or if the symposium was for "experts" only while offering mere tokenism to homeless persons in the reported feeding program. LISTEN TO THE AUDIO ENTRY HERE sad that the activity was also named in honour of one of JFLAG's founders who joined the event via Skype only to realise the issue he held so dear in his time was treated with such disrespect and dishonour. Have LGBT NGOs lost their way and are so mainstream they have forgotten their true calling?

also see a flashback to some of the issues with the populations and the descending relationships between JASL, JFLAG and the displaced/homeless LGBT youth in New Kingston: Rowdy Gays Strike - J-FLAG Abandons Raucous Homosexuals Misbehaving In New Kingston

also see all the posts in chronological order by date from Gay Jamaica Watch HERE and GLBTQ Jamaica HERE


see previous entries on LGBT Homelessness from the Wordpress Blog HERE

Newstalk 93FM's Issues On Fire: Polygamy Should Be Legalized In Jamaica 08.04.14

debate by hosts and UWI students on the weekly program Issues on Fire on legalizing polygamy with Jamaica's multiple partner cultural norms this debate is timely.

Also with recent public discourse on polyamorous relationships, threesomes (FAME FM Uncensored) and on social.

Popular Posts

RJR - Surprise Yes vote by Ja on Sexual Orientation Removal from Summary Executions Resolution

Beyond the Headlines host Dionne Jackson Miller has Arlene Harrison Henry and Maurice Tonlinson on Human RIghts Day 2012 on the the removal of language in the form of sexual orientation on the Summary Executions UN Resolution - On November 21, 2012, Jamaica voted[1] against resolution A/C.3/67/L.36 at the United Nations condemning extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions which urges States “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including… all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation

Homeless MSM evicted from Cargill Avenue (evening edition)

28/08/12 CVM TV again rebroadcast a story of homeless MSM and the deplorable living conditions coupled with the almost sensationalistic narrative of the alleged commercial sex work the men are involved in. Gay Jamaica Watch has been following this issue since 2009 when the older populations of MSMs who were for the most part displaced due to forced evictions and homo negative issues and their re-displacement by agencies who on the face of it refused to put in place any serious social interventions to assist the men to recovery CLICK HERE for the CLIP

Information, Disclaimer and more

Not all views expressed are those of GJW

This blog contains pictures and images that may be disturbing. As we seek to highlight the plight of victims of homophobic violence here in Jamaica, the purpose of the pics is to show physical evidence of claims of said violence over the years and to bring a voice of the same victims to the world.

Many recover over time, at pains, as relocation and hiding are options in that process. Please view with care or use theHappenings section to select other posts of a different nature.

Not all persons depicted in photos are gay or lesbian and it is not intended to portray them as such, save and except for the relevance of the particular post under which they appear.

Please use the snapshot feature to preview by pointing the cursor at the item(s) of interest. Such item(s) have a small white dialogue box icon appearing to their top right hand side.

God Bless

Other Blogs I write to:
Recent Homophobic Incidents CLICK HERE for related posts/labels from glbtqjamaica's blog & HERE for those I am aware of.


Steps to take when confronted by the police & your rights compromised:

a) Ask to see a lawyer or Duty Council

b) Only give name and address and no other information until a lawyer is present to assist

c) Try to be polite even if the scenario is tense

d) Don’t do anything to aggravate the situation

e) Every complaint lodged at a police station should be filed and a receipt produced, this is not a legal requirement but an administrative one for the police to track reports

f) Never sign to a statement other than the one produced by you in the presence of the officer(s)

g) Try to capture a recording of the exchange or incident or call someone so they can hear what occurs, place on speed dial important numbers or text someone as soon as possible

h) File a civil suit if you feel your rights have been violated

i) When making a statement to the police have all or most of the facts and details together for e.g. "a car" vs. "the car" represents two different descriptions

j) Avoid having the police writing the statement on your behalf except incases of injuries, make sure what you want to say is recorded carefully, ask for a copy if it means that you have to return for it

Notes on Bail & Court Appearance issues

If in doubt speak to your attorney

Bail and its importance -
If one is locked up then the following may apply:

Locked up over a weekend - Arrested pursuant to being charged or detained There must be reasonable suspicion i.e. about to commit a crime, committing a crime or have committed a crime. There are two standards that must be met:
1). Subjective standard: what the officer(s) believed to have happened

2). Objective standard: proper and diligent collection of evidence that implicates the accused To remove or restrain a citizen’s liberty it cannot be done on mere suspicion and must have the above two standards

 Police officers can offer bail with exceptions for murder, treason and alleged gun offences, under the Justice of the Peace Act a JP can also come to the police station and bail a person, this provision as incorporated into the bail act in the late nineties

 Once a citizen is arrested bail must be considered within twelve hours of entering the station – the agents of the state must give consideration as to whether or not the circumstances of the case requires that bail be given

 The accused can ask that a Justice of the Peace be brought to the station any time of the day. By virtue of taking the office excluding health and age they are obliged to assist in securing bail

"Bail is not a matter for daylight"

Locked up and appearing in court:
 Bail is offered at the courts office provided it was extended by the court; it is the court that has the jurisdiction over the police with persons in custody is concerned.

 Bail can still be offered if you were arrested and charged without being taken to court a JP can still intervene and assist with the bail process.

Other Points of Interest:
 The accused has a right to know of the exact allegation

 The detainee could protect himself, he must be careful not to be exposed to any potential witness

 Avoid being viewed as police may deliberately expose detainees

 Bail is not offered to persons allegedly with gun charges

 Persons who allegedly interfere with minors do not get bail

 If over a long period without charge a writ of habeas corpus however be careful of the police doing last minute charges so as to avoid an error

 Every instance that a matter is brought before the court and bail was refused before the accused can apply for bail as it is set out in the bail act as every court appearance is a chance to ask for bail

 Each case is determined by its own merit – questions to be considered for bail:

a) Is the accused a flight risk?
b) Are there any other charges that the police may place against the accused?
c) Is the accused likely to interfere with any witnesses?
d) What is the strength of the crown’s/prosecution’s case?

 Poor performing judges can be dealt with at the Judicial Review Court level or a letter to the Chief Justice can start the process

Human Rights Advocacy for GLBT Community Report 2009

What Human Rights .............

What are Human Rights?

By definition human rights are our inalienable fundamental rights. Inalienable means that which cannot be taken away. So our human rights are bestowed upon us from the moment we are born and, thus we are all entitled to these rights. Because we are entitled to our human rights and they cannot and should not be taken away from us, we as a people must strive to protect them, government should protect them and breaches of our rights should be highlighted and addressed appropriately.

Human rights are the same for everyone irrespective of colour, class or creed, and are applicable at both the national and international level. In Jamaica, our human rights are enshrined in and protected by our Constitution. Internationally, there have been numerous laws and treaties enacted specifically for the protection of human rights.

Milestone document

Most notably of these is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration is seen as a milestone document in the history of human rights. It was proclaimed by the United Nations, in 1948, as a common standard of achievements for all nations, and sets out the fundamental human rights to be universally recognised and protected.

The Declaration sets out the following rights:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Equality before the law

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.