Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

The agenda of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in The Bahamas

Greg Moss : Women’s rights being used to advance gay agenda


ROYSTON JONES JR.
Guardian Staff Reporter
royston@nasguard.com


Marco City MP Greg Moss said the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in The Bahamas is attempting to advance its agenda “under the guise” of the advancement of women’s rights.

His comments were made on Facebook in response to Bahamas Faith Ministries International President Dr. Myles Munroe, who said he has watched with horror over the years as people have “hijacked” and “raped” the meaning of the civil rights movement in an effort to fight for the rights of the LGBT community.

The statement has received strong criticism from the LGBT community.

Moss said, “Under the guise of standing upon their civil rights, they are attempting to intrude upon our civil and religious rights.

“By their attempt to enlarge their civil constitutional rights, they are attempting to whittle down our religious constitutional rights.

“That is why the present debate in Parliament is so important.”

He was referring to debate on the constitutional amendments bills.

There has been widespread concern about the fourth bill, which would make it unconstitutional to discriminate against someone based on sex.

Several members of Parliament, including those on the governing side, have expressed strong concerns that the word “sex” is open for interpretation and could lead to same-sex marriages.

The government has proposed to amend the bill to define the word “sex” as a man and woman.

The debate fueled a wider national conversation about the LGBT community.

Munroe’s statement, titled ‘Homosexuality - Phobia or Principle’, was in response to a gay pride event that took place in Grand Bahama over the weekend.

“In the guise of civil rights and human rights, the LGBT minority community [has] decided to celebrate the civility of [its] very uniquely chosen lifestyle and sexual preference publically,” Munroe said.

“I am not sure what their mission or goals are in this effort but obviously they have received enough incentive and motivation to attempt something that 90 percent of The Bahamas and Bahamians consider unacceptable and violates their collective convictions, moral standing and values.”

The event was cut short because members of the LGBT community expressed security concerns.

Munroe said he is confident that the LGBT lifestyle will remain socially unacceptable.

He spoke at length about the importance of fear and phobia and said there is a misconception surrounding homophobia.

He said people who express disagreement about those “who practice this lifestyle” are seen as having a “phobia”.

Moss said he agreed with Munroe.

He said the minority movement to advance the LGBT agenda and stigmatize those who oppose it as homophobic is “at its core, an attempt to impose a redefinition of the word of God by political means”.

“A call to righteous living is redefined as being homophobic,” Moss said.

“An insistence that marriage is a institution ordained by God between men and women is redefined as being hate speech.

“A fidelity to the word of God is redefined as being backward.

He continued: “Ultimately, the attempt to advance the LGBT agenda is an attempt to redefine the word of God in order to legitimize that lifestyle.

“And, therefore, the attempt to demonize religious resistance to the advancement of that agenda is implicitly a recognition by those who practice it that their lifestyle is wrong and needs to be legitimized.

“If they were content with their decisions, then they would not need to attempt to redefine the word of God in order to legitimize it. They would stand on their convictions.”

September 02, 2014

thenassauguardian

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Despite having sort-of decriminalised same-sex intercourse ...the government has not moved to cement legal protections for the equal treatment of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in The Bahamas

Lgbt Community: Too Tiny To Count?

 

The Bahamas government’s position on the issue of LGBT “rights” is tangled
The Bahamas government declined all recommendations concerning LGBT rights

 

 

By AVA TURNQUEST
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net



“Like I’ve said before, I don’t know of any person who is gay in this country who doesn’t have the same rights as I do. And so for you or anyone to say that that’s discriminating and such, I don’t know. Someone has to prove it to me.”

– Rev Dr Randford Patterson, Bahamas Christian Council president.


THIS is the second time in my life that I’ve agreed with the Bahamas Christian Council on an issue. Our first mutual agreement came earlier in our conversation when Rev Patterson said that Bahamians were too passive. Try not to be too shocked, times are changing. As the vocal religious community shouts at an even smaller yet silent advocacy grouping, has anyone ever bothered to ask the Bahamian people how they feel?

Despite having sort-of decriminalised same-sex intercourse, the government has not moved to cement legal protections for the equal treatment of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. Which begs the question of why the political strength to alter laws fell short of enacting supporting policy?

In the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Period Review last year, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, France, Uruguay and Argentina asked The Bahamas to consider measures to promote non-discrimination and tolerance regarding sexual orientation. In particular Uruguay noted that Bahamas law contained certain legal loopholes that “generated discrimination” against the LGBT community.

Perhaps it was the Sexual Offences Act, where the age of consent differs for same-sex acts between consenting individuals by two years, that left countries unconvinced that the government had necessary protections to protect human rights. Or perhaps the reference to “in a public place” with regard to same-sex?

Nevertheless, The Bahamas government declined all recommendations concerning LGBT rights.

The government’s position on the issue of LGBT “rights” is tangled. On one hand there is a strong stance on the protection of tourists and the tourism economy, from the product of state-sanctioned homophobia; and on the other there is a near total denial of sexual orientation discrimination in the local and national context.

Despite highlighting at every opportunity that his political career has suffered because of his marked support of LGBT rights Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell recently attempted to stratify discrimination. Apparently, there can be social, religious, and official discrimination – all coexisting yet only one with the political weight to effect changes. The issue surrounding gay rights, or lack thereof, in The Bahamas remains undefined, undocumented and under reported, yet it is clearly marked as an agenda. This characterisation allows the government to sidestep the matter under the guise of focusing on more pressing national issues such as crime, or unemployment, both of which apparently only take place under nondiscriminatory circumstances.

Also last month, Saint Lucian activist Kenita Placide presented a statement on behalf of the LGBT caucus at the 58th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Ms Placide said: “The criminalisation of adult consensual sexual activity and our communities, along with efforts by political and religious authorities to manipulate and stoke fears about sexual orientation and gender identity, only makes matters worse. Whether at the national level or at the CSW, decision makers must stop using these issues and our lives for their geopolitical gain.”

But where is the motive, where is the activism? In 2014, there are still no local reporting mechanisms to characterise crimes against persons based on sexual orientation, and as a result no concrete evidence of human rights abuses.

In a study released last year the Pew Research Centre found global correlation between age, secularism and affluence on individual attitudes on homosexuality. Basically it’s looking like the young, rich and not-so-religious are cool with gay people. Not too promising for the Caribbean, where the masses straddle the poverty line with hyper-spirituality, and the old show no signs of relinquishing influence.

But what do we know statistically? The 2013 Guyana study conducted by Caribbean Development Research Services Inc (CADRES) discovered that the majority of Guyanese are tolerant or accepting of homosexuals despite a pervading belief that being homosexual is a matter of choice. CADRES, a political consulting firm, reported that 58 per cent of Guyanese are tolerant or accepting, 17 per cent are undecided and 25 per cent homophobic.

Perhaps the crowning glory of the study is the data indicating that three per cent of Guyanese identify as homosexual and four per cent admitted to bisexuality. CADRES goes on to uncover that the majority of Guyanese support the retention of the buggery law – though it was explained that many were unaware of the law and its implications.

During her presentation lecturer Dr Melissa Ifill said the study was critical to expanding a research body that has been limited, and inevitably stigmatised, by contextual focus on HIV/AIDS research, which has been the primary donor of prior qualitative studies.

In Trinidad and Tobago there is also active discussion on the inclusion of sexual orientation protections in the constitution. The country recently completed its constitutional reform commission and the resulting report has been characterised as fuel for political cowardice on the issue.

In an interview following the report’s release, Coalition Advocating for the Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO) spokesman Colin Robinson slammed the commission for enabling political cowardice at the sacrifice of human rights to a measurable number of citizens. On the issue of protections the Trinidad and Tobago commission ruled that there should be more dialogue on the issue.

Mr Robinson said: “We estimated 3,500 adults are homosexual based on 2013 poll – this is a very conservative estimate. That number is equal or larger than a number of ethnic and racial minorities and we don’t have debates about their rights … what are we waiting for? We’ve had the national debate, we’ve seen movement on this issue, we’ve seen visibility of citizens, we’ve seen a constitutional reform commission deeply understand and get it right, get the conclusion of the issue right, but then get the solution wrong.”

Herein lies the challenge: who is going to prove it to Rev Patterson, and how? Where are the hard facts to stand up against people who insist that legal technicality is the ceiling as far as LGBT rights are concerned; to embolden politicians? To Rev Patterson and many others afforded a national platform, the campaign to amend laws for protection based on sexual orientation is a non-issue.

By framing LGBT rights as agenda and not a human rights issue we delegitimise victims’ claims by creating division between two fictional groups. It also characterises any lobby for increased protections as an “agenda”, a term that has been used by detractors to connote direct personal gain of one group over or against the will of another. In this case the larger group represents a nameless, faceless and emotionless majority that are somehow diametrically opposed to homosexuality yet don’t feel strongly enough to negatively harm the tiny community.

Five years ago former Tribune news editor Paco Nuñez wrote: “The problem with constructing a national identity out of generalisations is that it forces you to leave out the details, especially the ones that go against your polished version of the truth.”

Debate over gay rights in the Bahamas has been dominated by faith-based institutions and geographically bounded to New Providence for too long. The discrimination and social exclusion of the LGBT community is negatively correlated to the education and sensitivity training for public servants on the issue. The government must first educate public servants of their duty to LGBT members and sensitise workers on how the denial of public services constitutes a human rights abuse.

By denying discrimination - and resulting dialogue - validity on a national platform, the government authorises a culture of silence on human rights abuse. In light of statistics emerging from the region the time has come for local research to determine public attitudes on the issue and the way forward.

Bolstered by empirical data, evidence-based dialogue can provide constructive rebuttal to the vocal minority that dominates the public sphere in a bid to extend generational fears and stigma. Or to be fair, it may prove once and for all that the LGBT community is in fact, too tiny to count.

April 28, 2014

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Fred Mitchell is on the right side of history with respect to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender (LGBT) issue

The Bible And Lgbt Rights


By RUPERT MISSICK Jr:



THE discussion between popular preacher Dr Myles Munroe and Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell has been an interesting one. Interesting only because it is fascinating watching someone with a bigoted position attempt to maintain their civility while still holding fast to their bigotry.

In a recent speech he gave in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr Mitchell said his political career suffers because of his position on LGBT matters.

Almost on cue, Dr Munroe told the press that he recommended that the prime minister consider removing Mr Mitchell from his post as foreign affairs minister because his personal opinions may interfere with his objectivity in carrying out his duties in representing the viewpoint of Bahamian people, meaning that support of LGBT issues did not represent the majority of the convictions of the Bahamian people.

Dr Munroe’s position was predictable. Nearly all preachers run to the “solace” of the Scripture to justify their bigoted positions. On one hand you can’t blame them because it is to be expected. I mean you do expect a lawyer to refer to his law books. But the Bible isn’t a law book.

The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, cannot be the basis of forming a just and equal society because it doesn’t treat everyone equally and it is not just.

The Bible is like your schizophrenic uncle, you love him, you respect him but you have to take what he says in context and usually with a grain of salt.

Is your schizophrenic uncle right about some things? Sure. Does that make him someone you should follow blindly and without question. Probably not.

Because one minute this uncle loves you more than anything in the universe and the next he’s willing to smite you for an offence as simple as doing the laundry on the Sabbath or ready to declare you unclean for something your body does naturally.

Let’s face it, no one lives by Biblical standards, not because the road to righteousness is tough but because it’s impossible. And let’s be honest, as far as a rule book goes it’s filled with contradictory nonsense.

If our lives depended on following the Bible to the letter, then we’d all be dead. Literally. In the words of Psalm 130:3 if the “...Lord marked our guilt, who would survive”.

The Bible is right about loving your neighbour as yourself, being non-judgmental and taking care of the widowed, the poor and the sick. It’s not right about gay people.

It is as wrong about gay people as it was wrong to support slavery and the subjugation of women.

Any book that can be used to support laws that bolstered segregation, the outlawing of interracial marriage, laws preventing women from voting and the right of one group to assert itself over the next, among a plethora of human-rights abuses, deserves our scepticism.

Last year, Mr Mitchell publicly declared his support for the gay rights cause, calling it part of the ongoing fight against all forms of injustice around the world.

Speaking at a church service for Nelson Mandela, Mr Mitchell said although it faces much local opposition, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gender (LGBT) movement is part of the universal struggle against discrimination symbolised by the beloved South African leader.

Mr Mitchell is on the right side of history with respect to this issue.

As with interracial marriage before it, many will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. As more and more countries and states accept LGBT unions and after society and the “sanctity of marriage” doesn’t go to hell in a hand-basket, the religious anxieties over the issue will fade.

The Charter of the United Nations encourages “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction”. Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1945) states in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.”

Despite this, the rights of all citizens of this and other countries, even those who have signed these treaties are not being protected.

LGBT people are being separated by the fact that one set of privileges and rights are being afforded to one group, but not to them.

March 17, 2014