Should rape be confined to the forcible penetration of a penis to the vagina only? In other jurisdictions, it is not. However, in Jamaica, it is.

In our law, rape is defined as a man committing the offence if he has sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent or knowing that she does not consent or reckless disregard for her consenting.

In our Sexual Offences Act, sexual intercourse is defined as the entry of the penis to the vagina (only), that is the “penetration of vagina of one person by the penis of another person”. Therefore, if the same man uses an implement or any other body part to penetrate her vagina, mouth, or anus, it is considered grievous sexual assault. Or if he uses his penis to penetrate anywhere else on her other than her vagina, he may not be technically charged for rape.

In Jamaica, a person commits the offence of grievous sexual assault when they penetrate the anus or vagina of the victim with a body part other than the penis, or an object manipulated by them, causes another person to same, place his penis into the mouth of the victim, causes another person to place his penis into the mouth of the victim or places his or her mouth on the vagina, vulva, penis or anus of the victim or causes another person to do same.

I have had several experiences of dealing with families over the years, both at the ministerial and constituency levels, in which young girls and boys were ganged by other boys who forced them to have sex in their anus, and the offenders were charged with grievous sexual assault.

The conviction for rape is imprisonment for life, not being less than 15 years; this takes place in the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, “grievous sexual assault” can be tried either in the Parish Court or Supreme Court. If in the Parish Court, the conviction may not exceed three years. However, if the case is brought before the Supreme Court, the offender can get a life sentence of not less than 15 years.

In Barbados, section 3 (6) of their Sexual Offences Act says rape “includes the introduction, to any extent, in circumstances where the introduction of the penis of a person in the vagina of another would be rape,

(a) of the penis of a person into anus or mouth of another person; or

(b) an object, not being part of the human body, manipulated by a person in the vagina or anus of another”.

In Barbados, there is no determination as to who, where, or what must be used for rape to take place.

By our law, it is only a man that can rape a woman. Moreover, a man cannot experience rape in Jamaica (whether by a man or by a woman), unlike in Barbados, where the definition of rape is more gender-neutral.

The question arises, shouldn’t we make the act of rape in Jamaica gender-neutral?

To do so, we would have to modify our legal definition of sexual intercourse.

Seems an easy one-two step, right?

No, it is not.

On one occasion in Parliament, I dared to ask for our legal definition of sexual intercourse to change based on the reports of sexual abuse to our children that I knew first hand as an Member of Parliament and former minister of youth. The backlash I received was that I was, instead, trying to change our enshrined buggery laws, which have been with us since the 1800s.

In England, the Buggery Law of 1861 was changed in 1967. Yet, when Jamaica gained its Independence from Britain in 1962, it maintained the British buggery law, with remains intact and is still in force to this day.

Our buggery law criminalises same-sex activity and its associated conduct, including anal sex and any sex between men.

The “act of buggery” is when “any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour”.

These acts are referred to as “unnatural offences” and “outrages on decency” and state that “whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a term not exceeding 10 years.

I have said it before, and I will repeat it, we have a legislative dilemma that is creating inequitable legal consequences surrounding how we treat rape in this country. Rather than confront the fact that many of our boys and men are raped, and change the law to give them redress, Jamaica has her head buried in the sand. On one hand, we urge equality in our treatment of men and women, yet on the other hand we maintain hypocrisy when it suits us.

Too often it is the religious extremists who have sabotaged the legislation that tied the hands of the Parliament, arguing that we should not change our definition surrounding sexual intercourse, perhaps as a means of convincing themselves that it’s the moral thing to stave off any real or perceived legality of same-sex relationships taking place in our society.

As a result of their stance, and our legal definitions unchanged, many boys and men who have been, or are being raped and sexually abused by men, continue to suffer in silence and do not come forward out of fear of being stigmatised or thrown in jail, even though they are the victims.

I will always stand on the front line to protect the most vulnerable among us from the forces which feel that women must not have the choice on what happens with their bodies, and that we should keep outdated definitions to substantiate grievous sexual assault when, in fact, girls and boys are being raped.

Too many legislators are afraid of the pushback from religious conservative groups, and it’s time we recognise that what we are doing is wrong.

Lisa Hanna is Member of Parliament for St Ann South Eastern, People’s National Party spokesperson on foreign affairs and foreign trade, and a former Cabinet member.