This week, one of Acre Lane's loyal readers asked to comment on my post of September 12th concerning John Terry's murder in Jamaica. Here's what CB has to say.
In a recent newspaper article reacting to the murder of John Terry (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/peter-tatchellpoliticians-and-pop-stars-are-to-blame-1786275.html), gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell depicts Jamaica as a place of blood thirsty homophobia. The island’s surveillance and control of sexuality is likened to living under the Taliban. ‘The homophobic lynch mob mentality is worse in Jamaica than in Saudi Arabia or Iran,’ he says. The controversial British activist argues that the church, politicians and dancehall artistes are the root causes of Jamaica’s anti-gay sentiments. His recommendation? The EU must make development aid conditional on Jamaica repealing its buggery laws and extending human rights protection to sexual minorities.
I am not so much concerned with Peter Tatchell, who is known for his exaggerated views and actions. As a Jamaican, my response to the issues is marked by anxieties about nationality, identity, politics, intellectual integrity and the threat of imperialism. My views often vacillate between an apologist stance (arguing that it’s not that bad for gays in Jamaica), and a utopian one (where I argue that things are unacceptable and Jamaica must come to fully respect and protect the rights of gays and lesbians). But I am sure of the following things:
1) Making aid conditional on the repealing of buggery laws will not change things. In fact, it will make things worse. Such a move would no doubt galvanise the virulent nationalistic homophobia that is at the root of Jamaica's present gay rights problem. What we do not need is self-righteous grandstanding from the ‘West’ which eviscerates rather than supports Jamaican-based efforts and strategies for gay emancipation.
2) Law and human rights are not enough. Activists would have us believe that de-criminalising gay sex is the route to redemption and inclusion. Yet in South Africa, progressive rulings from the Supreme Court on sodomy and on same-sex marriage - even enshrining gay rights in the South African constitution - have not been enough to halt the ‘therapeutic’ raping of lesbians by men hell-bent on turning them straight. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudysimelane-corrective-rape-south-africa ).
3) Gay Jamaicans can experience Jamaica in vastly different ways. The island’s Head of Serious and Organised Crime, Assistant Commissioner Les Green, flippantly pointed out in a recent newspaper article ‘there are openly gay people in Jamaica and they live quite openly and mingle freely.’ (http://w w w . j a m a i c a o b s e r v e r . c o m / n e w s / h t m l /20090912T230000-0500_159548_OBS_TERRY_S_MURDER_NO_HATE_CRIM
E__SAY_POLICE.asp ). He might have been blithely unaware of many others whose
experience is very much like ‘living under the Taliban.’ I am here reminded of a story of a young man who lived in a garrison community in Jamaica, who was beaten up daily (and at times raped) when passing other houses to get to his own.
4) There are ways in which privileged Jamaican gay men eroticise, play and get caught in a complex social, economic and sexual game with self-loathing, homophobic, gay-vague, opportunistic thugs. Some of this speaks to lack of personal responsibility on the part of those gay men. But in recognising this, we must also be alert to E. Akintola Hubbard’s comment on the previous blog post. He warns that the subtext in police reports of ‘no forced entry’ at the victim's home, is that homophobia is removed as a viable motive, the murder is dismissed as ‘gay on gay violence' and the entire spectacle is deemed not worthy of police investigation time.
5) Finally, as human beings - gays, straights, sons, daughters and friends of Jamaica - we are all affected by this incident. Not only are we affected by it, but we all have some agency (no matter how small) to begin to change it.
CB
I am not so much concerned with Peter Tatchell, who is known for his exaggerated views and actions. As a Jamaican, my response to the issues is marked by anxieties about nationality, identity, politics, intellectual integrity and the threat of imperialism. My views often vacillate between an apologist stance (arguing that it’s not that bad for gays in Jamaica), and a utopian one (where I argue that things are unacceptable and Jamaica must come to fully respect and protect the rights of gays and lesbians). But I am sure of the following things:
1) Making aid conditional on the repealing of buggery laws will not change things. In fact, it will make things worse. Such a move would no doubt galvanise the virulent nationalistic homophobia that is at the root of Jamaica's present gay rights problem. What we do not need is self-righteous grandstanding from the ‘West’ which eviscerates rather than supports Jamaican-based efforts and strategies for gay emancipation.
2) Law and human rights are not enough. Activists would have us believe that de-criminalising gay sex is the route to redemption and inclusion. Yet in South Africa, progressive rulings from the Supreme Court on sodomy and on same-sex marriage - even enshrining gay rights in the South African constitution - have not been enough to halt the ‘therapeutic’ raping of lesbians by men hell-bent on turning them straight. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudysimelane-corrective-rape-south-africa ).
3) Gay Jamaicans can experience Jamaica in vastly different ways. The island’s Head of Serious and Organised Crime, Assistant Commissioner Les Green, flippantly pointed out in a recent newspaper article ‘there are openly gay people in Jamaica and they live quite openly and mingle freely.’ (http://w w w . j a m a i c a o b s e r v e r . c o m / n e w s / h t m l /20090912T230000-0500_159548_OBS_TERRY_S_MURDER_NO_HATE_CRIM
E__SAY_POLICE.asp ). He might have been blithely unaware of many others whose
experience is very much like ‘living under the Taliban.’ I am here reminded of a story of a young man who lived in a garrison community in Jamaica, who was beaten up daily (and at times raped) when passing other houses to get to his own.
4) There are ways in which privileged Jamaican gay men eroticise, play and get caught in a complex social, economic and sexual game with self-loathing, homophobic, gay-vague, opportunistic thugs. Some of this speaks to lack of personal responsibility on the part of those gay men. But in recognising this, we must also be alert to E. Akintola Hubbard’s comment on the previous blog post. He warns that the subtext in police reports of ‘no forced entry’ at the victim's home, is that homophobia is removed as a viable motive, the murder is dismissed as ‘gay on gay violence' and the entire spectacle is deemed not worthy of police investigation time.
5) Finally, as human beings - gays, straights, sons, daughters and friends of Jamaica - we are all affected by this incident. Not only are we affected by it, but we all have some agency (no matter how small) to begin to change it.
CB
I beg to differ on some of your opinions. Without laboriously entering in a debate, ler me ask a few questions.
ReplyDeleteYou state that the law and human rights are not enough, but wouldn't this be a step in the right direction? Wouldn't having the "Law on your side" encourage a certain level of "protection" and open the avenues for "tolerance"?
Jamaicans do not understand homosexuality and consequently do not understand the many layers of homophobia though they fester in its bowels. How would you expect them to understand the concept of "self loathing, opportunistic, gay for pay or by convenience principle?
With a prime minister that galvanises the homphobic sentiment of the society, how do we expect to effect ANY level of change?
Finally, let me state that the Jamaican people are "Hungry" and "Angry". Before we can expect the society to deal with the peripheral issue of homophobia (peripheral because our challenges are as vast and deep as the ocean), don't you think we must address the fundamental issues that affect our society as a whole?
I think we are in closer agreement than you think. In pointing out that human rights are ‘not enough’ I am not denying their value. They are indeed a step in the ‘right direction’, but that’s merely what they are, a step. In this respect, I must ask you a question, with a prime minister that ‘galvanises the homophobic sentiment of the society,’ should we expect or hope for imminent legal change? I am not so sure. I am worried about the way ‘rights’ and ‘law’ are held up to be a panacea in these debates. I believe this often has the effect of limiting us from thinking more expansively about the roots of, and routes to social justice.
ReplyDeleteIn this respect, I agree with your argument that we have to address the ‘fundamental issues that affect our society as a whole.’ As I was trying to argue (but couldn’t because of space constraints), discrimination in Jamaica is indexed to, and caught up with economic, political and other socio-cultural issues. Research shows that the more economically prosperous a country becomes, the more conducive it is for human rights. In this respect, the recent decision to repeal buggery laws in India cannot be separated from the rising levels of income, education and development in that Sub-continent. This also seems to be supported when we look at the Caribbean countries that are the more tolerant in the region. In this sense, the human rights movement must come to view and support wide social policy as a form of gay rights policy.
Finally, you express pessimism that Jamaicans (being ignorant) and their leaders (being mercenary) will never come to understand or accept sexual difference. I am a bit more hopeful. Jamaicans do understand complex socio-sexual and economic relations, they have had to negotiate these complex realities daily. What plagues the gay context is a lack of awareness. What is necessary is a form of ‘truth raising’ from activists using various media, tv, music and other forms of cultural expression. The stories of sexual minorities need to be told, and not by a media which appropriates and distorts them. I’ve always thought that while Jamaican cultural forms have been a vehicle for homophobia, they could also become a space for ‘activism.’ You may think this is utopian or naive, but it's the kind of ‘out of the box’ proactive thinking I believe will begin to ‘open the avenues of tolerance.’ It's the sort of activism I was inviting us to think about.
Love your response..and yes we are very much on the same page here.....unfortunately change is a slow and sometimes fickle process (fickle because we take a giant step forward, but something upsets the "apple cart" and sends us 3 steps back).....
ReplyDeleteThis forum is too limited for such a wide discussion...
Personally I don't think Bruce is homophobic at all..he is simply playing the role of what is "expected" by the masses, afraid to step outside the proverbial "box" for fear of a backlash. ( PJ had the same issue but for different reasons) He fails to realise his social power and is simply functioning from the "playbook" of what a Jamaican politician should represent. My opinion is that he is in turmoil and made a selfish choice for his personal gain, not realising that ultimately it may be much to his chagrin...Philip..is this a topic for another post?
PS..for some reason i couldnt post under my name/profile and had to post as anonymous..this is kevincrobinson( Previous comment)..Philip..fix this blog at once!
ReplyDelete