THE GOVERNMENT, quite rightly in our view, has rejected the report by Human Rights Watch which calls for Jamaica to repeal its sodomy laws and accuses the State and its police force of turning a blind eye to the rampant abuse of homosexual males and persons with HIV/AIDS. There is no doubt that Jamaican society is for the most part homophobic but to link this with a demand for changes in our sovereign laws and to imply that such an attitude has impacted negatively on the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS is untrue, illogical and provocative.
Jamaica has for many years mounted a publicly funded campaign to warn its citizens about the dangers of AIDS and to promote the use of condoms. This campaign has been no less successful than similar campaigns in other countries, including the United States. It may be true that, because of limited resources, not enough is being done for the actual care of infected patients but this is a separate issue which does not benefit from a confrontational approach.
This said, if the Human Rights Watch report stimulates reasoned debate on why there is such a high level of homophobia in Jamaica it will have served some purpose. A phobia is a state of mind which sees danger out of proportion to its causality, an unreasonable fear which would tend to cause discrimination against homosexuals and, often, the violation of their human rights.
Some religious groups encourage this phobia but others maintain that in most cases homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation and therefore, on a pastoral level, deserve to be treated with respect and accepted as members of the church. But because homosexuality in the objective order is seen as being against the dictates of natural law, many denominations maintain that individual homosexuals have a moral duty to try to restrain their proclivities. This may be easier said than done and any final judgement on the morality of an individual homosexual must be left to his or her Creator.
There is a place for the public discussion of the rights of homosexuals, as indeed for any other group. These debates may yet result in changes or endorsement of our current laws, but civil rights groups might get a more sympathetic hearing if they were less strident in the views which they espouse.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
