THE DEBATE over the proposed Charter of Rights, and in particular the response of some church groups to the document, has typically generated more heat than light. It would also seem that, at the very least, some of the persons objecting to the Charter have arrived at an a priori position or are relying on other people's interpretation of the document without having read it.
The church groups have identified two broad areas of concern - that the preaching of the Christian Gospel might be restricted or classified as hate speech and that the inclusion of the right to privacy of the home opens the door for the legalising of homosexual relationships and possible sanctioning of same-gender marriage.
The Charter recognises quite explicitly, as was published in our Monday edition: "The right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of religious and political doctrines." It also recognises the right "to seek, receive, distribute or disseminate information, opinions and ideas through any media." On what basis then can the church groups argue that moves are afoot to stifle their expression and ability to propagate the Christian Gospel?
Additionally, as regards the right to privacy of the home, that should be a non-negotiable protection accorded all citizens within the reasonable exceptions - as, for example, the committal of murder or abuse of minors - granted elsewhere in the Constitution.
In expressing their concern over the potential legalising of homosexual relationships without repealing current buggery laws, the groups have not yet explained how taking away the right to privacy can be restricted to homosexuals only? From a practical point of view, how is this going to be enforced? Which special unit of law enforcement officers is going to be equipped to play the role of Peeping Tom on what people are doing behind closed doors?
This selective morality of the church groups puts them in a curious dilemma that raises questions about their focus and sincerity. The biblical strictures and moral codes on which their objections are presumably based are not confined to same-sex relationships. Yet they have largely been silent when entertainers have called for the murder of homosexuals and people identified as such have been subject to public physical attacks. As difficult as it may be for the objectors to accept, Jamaica is still a pluralistic society. By all means it is their right to denounce and preach against homosexual relationships. They should also accord people the freedom to choose the pathways they wish to follow, and to live with the consequences of their actions.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
