- PHOTOS BY RUDOLPH BROWN/CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER
LEFT: Shirley Richards, president Lawyers Christian Fellowship, Rev. Dr. Al Miller, and Major Richard Cooke, at Gordon House. RIGHT: Senators Trevor Munroe, Anthony Johnson and Dorothy Lightbourne, during the Charter of Right Debate last week at Gordon House.
Mark Dawes, Senior Staff Reporter
THE LAWYERS Christian Fellow-ship (LCF) and the newly-formed National Church Alliance are opposed to the present form of the Charter of Rights which is slated for inclusion in the revised Constitution of Jamaica.
The groups are concerned about the implications for freedom of conscience and the inclusion of a privacy clause.
President of the LCF, Shirley Richards, said the discussion on the Charter of Rights was important because of the militancy of the homosexual lobby internationally.
"We realised that in almost every country of the world, there is a battle on about two issues: firstly homosexuality and secondly abortion. So we started looking at our own local position to see where we were vulnerable," Mrs. Richards said.
To guard against same-sex marriages, the LCF believes that concerned citizens must be vigilant and militant in the face of a global homosexual lobby.
"I see a similarity in the Charter that is proposed here and what exists in Canada. I think ours still guarantees a little more protection," Mrs. Richards said.
NOT SURPRISED
Is the LCF overreacting to the proposed Charter? Mrs. Richards does not think so. "I am not surprised at the charge. But please understand that the issue is not only about homosexual marriages. We are also concerned about grave omissions from the Charter of the provisions of Section 21 of the Constitution.
"Section 21:1 gives rights to freedom of conscience and religious freedom. We think that those rights have been watered down to an extent, though not necessarily intentionally. I am not imputing intention to anybody.
"Also Section 21 Subsection 3 of the Constitution which says that no constitution of a religious denomination shall be changed without the consent of the governing authority of that religious institution. That is not in the Charter. We think that is important because in time to come, pressure might be brought to bear on a church to change its constitution in order to be less discriminatory. Church documents tend to be discriminatory. For example, there are some churches who don't believe women should preach, or that women should hold certain offices within the Church. The Church discriminates on different grounds. So, here it is, the Constitution preserves a right that is not in the Charter."
"Then there is Section 21 Subsection 4 which allows a religious institution to disseminate religious instruction, even those in receipt of public funds. Again that is not repeated in the Charter".
Because this right is not repeated in the Charter, Mrs. Richards hinted that someone could argue in court and thereby put God out of the classroom. Similarly, staples of school life such as devotions, Christmas plays, and carol services, could become a thing of the past.
"We are being asked to give up specific rights for general rights. When the exercise of these rights are challenged it will be left up to the Courts to decide whose rights should prevail. We are giving up certain for uncertain."
The group took issue with the Charter's privacy clause as recorded in Section 13 (3) (j).
"The words 'respect for private and family life, privacy of the home', could be interpreted as allowing for adult consensual homosexual conduct in private."
She said too that the concept of privacy as stated in the Charter could also allow for abortion as right. Abortions are permissible in law in the United States, she noted, as it is considered a matter of privacy.
