 |
| 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
