Melville Cooke
If ever the law has lived up to its reputation as an ass - literally - it is in a buggery case that I read about on page three of last Friday's STAR, which ended in a conviction. I do not have a problem with the letter (or should I say thrust?) of the law, but the judicial process, which in this case has been ass-inine. And it did not call for the splitting of hairs, legal or otherwise.
Two men, 52 and 60, were found guilty in the Manchester Circuit Court on October 2, 1999. The very short story read in part: "Police witnesses say they were on patrol on Rembrandt Close investigating drug activities when they surprised the two men watching porn movies in a house while having sex."
How the hell did the police move from being on patrol investigating drug activities to getting into the house where the two men were? Did they have a warrant to enter the house for those 'drug activities' and surprising the men was a side effect? Were they on patrol and saw gay porn (which I can only assume it was, since I do not expect that the queer guy has an eye for straight sex) through an open window and rushed inside to stop this heinous, this dastardly, this national security threatening crime, guns cocked and sensibilities bristling? Or did they have a personal suspicion that the men were homosexuals and gaily crept up on them to serve and protect the cause of sexual morality, while neglecting to do same with the massage parlours which advertise their services? Furthermore, having got into the house, what purpose was served by a near six-year court case? As incomprehensible, as inexplicable, as infuriating as it is to me and apparently many others, homosexuals will always be with us. If they choose to conduct their activities in privacy it is none of my business, or the business of the state, to seek them out and harass them, with or without the support of the law.
When that happens, as I suspect in this instance, prosecution becomes persecution. The two gentlemen were in a private place conducting their private business which, as distasteful, as disgusting as disconcerting as it is to those of us who are not so inclined, is in those circumstances their concern and their concern only.
SEXUAL URGE
The sexual urge, whether it is manifested (pun intended again) in a manner that we approve of or not, is undeniable and no one has yet come up with a law or penalty that can stand up to sexual arousal. My stance (no pun) with most gay people is that I know, you know that I know, I know that you know that I know and we leave it at that. The best that I can ask for is that those who indulge in sex with persons of their own gender keep it to themselves.
Which is what these two men did, so how the hell did they end up being heckled outside the Manchester Circuit Court last Thursday? The story reads: "At the hearing, scores of persons converged near the court to catch a glimpse of and hurled insults at the men."
Which makes a total mockery of the in-camera trial they had just gone through, in which a jury found them guilty in 40 minutes. Could the case not have been transferred somewhere else and, if so, why was that not done?
MARKED MEN
The two have become marked men, their faces indelibly imprinted on the memories of scornful and hostile strangers. Whatever their sentences, they can no longer feel comfortable in their homes, they can no longer carry on with their professions, they can no longer carry on with their lives at a stage where starting over again in some place new is like asking a near-retiree to migrate and work in a fast-food restaurant.
Or did this have something to with the fact that the two were 'prominent Manchester men' and there is this need in the society to exploit any cracks in such prominence?
No man, a eediat ting dem keep up pon de two man dem, whe did a hide an a do dem ting. Man to man is, as Marley said, so unjust, but so in this case is the judicial process. The law has been an ass.
Mel Cooke is a freelancewriter.
