THE EDITOR, Sir:
I READ with interest the article 'Charter of Rights Part II' by Stephen Vasciannie on February 27, and respond as follows:
1) You have suggested that there are some problems in how the church group interprets the proposed charter of rights. This is your opinion in much the same way that the church group has its own opinion. The matter of the interpretation of statutes is not an exact science and consequently many lawyers and judges differ in their interpretation on a single matter. The Attorney-General's Depart-ment has in recent times held substan-tially different views from the United Kingdom Privy Council to the extent that changes have to be made to the laws surrounding death row inmates. If it is the intention of the Joint Select Committee not to make homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle, then why not write in clear language rather than wait for the court to interpret?
2) The advisory group to the Joint Select Committee is comprised of all scholarly people, but their terms of reference (TOR) would be a deciding factor. If it was the TOR of the advisory group to permit homosexuality under the constitution, then the advisory group only did what was intended.
ENDLESS LIST OF POSSIBILITIES
3) If the religious leaders are correct in their interpretation of the right to privacy, then I agree with you that the list of possibilities are endless - incest, drug use, bestiality, rape, homo-sexuality, etc.
(a). The amendment to the proposed charter must be clear in its wording. Does the Government believe "that marriage is the union of a man and a woman - to the exclusion of all others"
(b). Will the Government "make it absolutely clear that Jamaica will not recognise same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of any other country"?
4) I agree with you that the views and opinions of the United Nations are not binding. The fundamental principle of democracy is that the power of the Government is given by the governed. Therefore the Government's first responsibility is to the people who gave it power to act on its behalf. To that extent any international treaty that the Government signs must conform to our constitution. If otherwise, then the treaty should be declared void. Again if we are clear as to what we want as a people, then we should not be afraid to write it out clearly. On this point I would like to remind Dr. Trevor Munroe that the Government is obligated to the people of Jamaica, not the United Nations.
5) North America. The United States and Canada have strong influences upon this nation. While it is expected that the Jamaican court in interpreting the law, would look at the local meaning of privacy, judges and lawyers differ even now in their interpretation. Even if the matter is taken to the U.K. Privy Council, we may come out with something quite the opposite of what was intended, since that society has already taken a homosexuality route.
The Government must state its intention and not hide behind the courts.
I will await Mr. Vasiciannie's comments on the proposed Bill of Rights- limit of religious freedom.
I am, etc.,
MATTHEW JOHNSON
25 Burlington Avenue
Kingston
