In the early to mid-1980s, two men (“Christmus” and Buck) living in separate districts on the outskirts of the town of Highgate, St Mary, were described as homosexuals. As boys, we were told not to visit their homes or properties without parental presence or adequate adult supervision. As far as I can recall, neither “Christmus” nor Buck were known at the time to be violent felons or paedophiles. If anything, their strange shenanigans provided comic relief to those who even bothered to observe their behaviour or listen to their utterances. However, one could not help laughing whenever they were around.

“Christmus”, it was alleged, was caught in a compromising position with one of his kind on Christmas Day; hence, the moniker “Christmus”. Buck, the abbreviated form for Buchanan, was more flamboyant and, as the adults at the time would say, he was “one piece a woman” masquerading around like a normal man. Buck was a staunch Comrade and Christmus an unrepentant Labourite. Both attended church; one was Catholic the other Anglican. At election time, it was something of a spectacle to observe them go mano a mano politically. Their attitudes and utterances came with the funniest kind of feminine flair imaginable, and people would whisper aloud, “Wait deh nuh; watch Miss Christmus and Miss Buck, no woman cyaan beat dem enuh…” Both men were verbally abusive toward one another, but in a playful way, and their cantankerous arguments never led to physical blows. Once elections were over, Christmus and Buck resorted to their favourite pastime of “lapping frock tail” with the women in district and gossiping for hours on end. I left before they died. But up to the time of migration, the communities of Tremolesworth and Dean Pen, in which these men lived, protected them, if even aloofly.

Countless such stories abound concerning ‘homosexual’ sightings or presumed happenings all across Jamaica. Therefore, this modern-day reference to homosexual tendencies and homosexuality in Jamaica as being “alien to our culture” is specious at best, and hypocritical at worst. What has happened over the years, with the explosion of the violent “bun dem” and “murder dem” dancehall lyrics as violence against gay men increased, has been tantamount to the kind of violence for which the Tonton Macoutes in Haiti are renowned. Therefore, the sooner Jamaica realises that a rational conversation needs to take place around the issue of human rights, and gay rights in particular, the better prepared we will be to face the global trend towards more open societies. The Jamaican religious community can pray and preach all it wants; preaching and praying are no substitutes for the far-reaching social and legislative changes that are impatient of implementation. The church has an important role in this, but its role cannot be to fuel the fire of intolerance or to propagate the gospel of fear and condemnation as a way of sustaining religious control. Furthermore, the church, parliament, and civil society cannot continue the practice of selective indignation; they remain quiet on certain issues such as pastoral sexual abuse of little girls and boys, tax evasion, etc, but vociferous on changes to the buggery laws, however necessary, given the ambiguities in the current law. I support amending the Buggery Act, it is too archaic and intrusive.

Honesty demands no less of us, as an emerging post-modern society, than to accept that closeted homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and, perhaps, even transsexuals are present in our corporate offices, public sector, ghettos, legislature, music and entertainment industry, the Fourth Estate, law enforcement, academia, barbershops, classrooms, medicine — everywhere. How long do we think they are going to keep themselves closeted? We should not deny that these realities exist. Instead, we ought to prepare ourselves to become tolerant of those who happen to share different sexual orientations and interests than the majority.

According to science, homosexuality is not a communicable phenomenon. One does not become homosexual by treating a fellow human being with civility. Homosexuals cannot cough up or sneeze homosexuality and one just catches the “homo-genes”.

Frankly, we do not have to accept or condone any private sexual activity, including lesbianism, bisexuality or homosexuality that we find downright offensive to our individual consciences or personhood. Sexual preference is an individual’s personal choice, which, according to research, is influenced by the person’s genetic predisposition — this is sufficient information to allow them to be themselves. This brings me to the point on “moral imperialism”.

The United States of America is not the only country that operates like the moral potentate of the world; several European countries and multilateral agencies operate in that way. For, whilst I am for equality under the law, I am vehemently opposed to non-justified interference by superpowers and organisations in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. I support citizens’ opposition to attempts by outside forces to desecrate our cultural epitaphs or to use covert actions to rewrite and reset the social norms and cultural dynamics many of which are enshrined through our experiences and heritage.

On the contrary, however, where a country is on the wrong side of history and demonstrates grave unwillingness to change course, especially if its survival hinges upon oppressing its people, there is nothing wrong with one country helping the other to realise a better quality of life for its entire population. Many countries have been on the wrong side of history before and, had it not been for the intervention of other countries, tens of millions of lives would have been lost. In Cambodia for instance, between 1975 and 1979, over two million died from starvation, overwork and executions during an attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a communist peasant farming society. Though struggling with its own issues at the time, Vietnam intervened and launched a full-scale invasion of Cambodia in early December 1978. The full focus of that invasion was to end the Khmer Rouge’s terrible reign. By early January 1979, Phnom Penh had already fallen and Pol Pot deposed.

I do not buy the arguments by some gay activists that there is a deliberate movement afoot to round up and kill gays in Jamaica. Straight up, that claim is bovine excrement of the highest order. Similarly, I do not sense that the society, as a whole, is as homophobic or anti-gay as some are making it out to be. I may be wrong, but I really do not feel this way at all. The Jamaican society is not yet at that place to have any rational discussions about human rights, or about gay rights in particular. I do not presume to understand the reasons for the willingness to engage irrationally, or the unwillingness to do so rationally, even though more and more people same place here in Jamaica are bravely “coming out” privately and publicly to families and friends. Nonetheless, there are too many incidents of violence against gay men; and we have to be ever mindful of these situations — such as the one I am about to share — which can really stymie our prospects for advancement.

Recently, I participated in a review of a video that shows the beating of a Jamaican homosexual man. I must confess that had I known the content was going to be as gruesome as it turned out to be, I would have declined the invitation. Simply put, it was an absolute displeasure to watch that video. The video shows the young man being severely beaten for upward of 20 minutes. Set upon by a mob in May Pen, Clarendon, the attack on him is reminiscent of John Crows descending on rotten meat. The ringleader narrated the ordeal this way: “Drop da stone inna di bwoy head. Big man ting! Gimme da bucket deh wid di gas mek mi douse ‘im down an bun up ‘im wwhat’s-it not…” All of this time, the mob jeered and encamped around the near lifeless body like flies stuck in honey. Their requiem sounded and resembled scenes from a horror movie. The shouts for blood and death could not be clearer. The sole voice of reason was drowned out, but were it not for the brave, timely and motherly intervention of an elderly woman, who appears in her mid-70s, that poor guy would have succumbed to the avalanche of ‘batteration’ he sustained. For, even as the poor woman hovered over his badly beaten frame to save him from complete evisceration, the angry bloodthirsty mob continued: “Bout ‘im love man…dem bwoy yah fi chop up and feed to hog…” Aghast by the caveman-like behaviour of my fellow citizens, I quietly exited the conference room, overcome with embarrassment.

What could really possess a group of mostly teenagers to express such severe hatred toward a fellow citizen who just happens to feel and express his love and affection for someone of his same-kind? Yet, that seemed to be his crime. If we accept and classify his crime as a serious sexual aberration — in a society of extremely high moral virtue, with levels of social awareness as high as Mount Everest — then we must ask ourselves if the punishment for such offences requires inflicting incessant body blows to the person, buttressed by the wrenching barbarity of jungle justice. Take my word for it, that video would cause any decent human being, whether gay, straight, in-between, to view Jamaica as a backward, violent and oppressive society. Whilst it is not a strictly economic issue, can we afford to allow this painting of us to stand, particularly within context of our desire for foreign direct investment? How much do we really care that some of the dollars and financial cushions we seek flow directly from companies led by gay men and lesbians? Apple Computer Inc comes to mind. We need to ponder these things and begin to act rationally and wisely, because hypocrisy will yield us naught.

Burnscg@aol.com