OPPOSITION Member of Parliament (MP) Lisa Hanna has received strong support from some quarters for her motion to redefine sexual intercourse in law to make the act of rape in Jamaica gender neutral.

It has, however, re-sparked the debate on Jamaica’s buggery law and drawn the disapproval of at least one religious body — the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHC) — which says it is staunchly opposed to the notion of gender-neutral rape, arguing that the country’s law already has provisions for males who are physically violated to take legal action.

The JCHC says it is of the view that Jamaica’s laws, public policies, and social order “must continue to be rooted in biological reality and design and purpose in the natural order of the universe.

“In that context, sex is between male and female sex organs. We, therefore, reject out of hand the concept that sexual intercourse should be gender-neutral. It is not,” chairman of the JCHC Dr Wayne West told the Jamaica Observer less than 24 hours after Hanna had tabled a motion in Parliament.

He further argued that the law presently recognises differences in anatomy and biology and that rape refers to non-consensual penetration of particular body parts designed for sexual intercourse.

“The law provides recourse for men who are physically violated to take legal action. That provision is called buggery. We are aware of the fact that the punishment for buggery is less than that for rape, but we are also aware that the law that makes buggery illegal is protected by our savings clause, and if it is changed in anyway it will lose the protection of the savings clause,” added West.

He argued that it is important that the buggery law be retained, as it protects the society from actors who wish to “make law and public policy based on desire, free of reason”.

West suggested that to compensate for the lower punishment for buggery compared to rape, prosecutors should be encouraged to use their discretion to lay additional charges against a perpetrator, which in the accumulation, can arrive at an equivalent or higher sentencing potential.

In the motion, which she tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, Hanna noted that under Jamaica’s law, it is only a man who can rape a woman and a man cannot experience rape whether by a man or woman.

According to Hanna, this is presenting a legislative dilemma, creating inequitable legal consequences surrounding how we treat rape in Jamaica.

“Because our legal definitions have been unchanged for centuries, many boys and men who have been, or are being raped and sexually abused by men and women, continue to suffer in silence and don’t come forward out of fear of being stigmatised or thrown in jail even though they are the victims,” she said.

But West questioned the basis on which Hanna says that boys or men who are victims of sexual abuse are silent — “legal terminologies or social taboos?”

“We believe that this issue will be resolved by addressing the social taboos that make it difficult for men and boys to report these crimes. Changing the name of the law will not solve that problem,” he said.

However, pastor at the Phillippo Baptist Church in Spanish Town, St Catherine, the Reverend Karl Johnson, supports Hanna, as he is of the belief that the definition of rape ought to be gender-neutral as males can also be raped.

Johnson argued that rape is engaging in an act against somebody’s will and whoever suffers this violation should not be based on gender.

“So whatever legislative framework that can ensure that no human being is exploited, no human being has their dignity assaulted would receive my full support,” said Johnson.

Human rights group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) has also thrown its support behind Hanna’s motion while calling for parliamentarians to move with haste to amend the definition of sexual intercourse.

According to JFJ, this is something for which it has been calling for over many years.

“We underscore the importance of this, as currently, men and boys cannot be raped in law and women and girls who are forcibly anally penetrated receive less legislative protection given the gaps. How just is it that forced penile vaginal penetration can see the perpetrator facing maximum of life imprisonment and minimum 15 years but an equally heinous act of forced anal penetration has the perpetrator facing a maximum of 10 years,” the group said in response to Observer queries.

Executive director of JFJ, Mickel Jackson, said the entity is disappointed that the joint select committee of Parliament which reviewed the sexual offences and other related Acts did not accept its recommendations on amending the definition of rape and making changes to grievous sexual assault to address forced anal sex.

She lamented that instead, legislators said they would put the matter of buggery to a referendum.

In 2014, then Opposition Leader Andrew Holness had challenged then Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller to address the buggery law through a referendum. However, this has not gained traction since the Holness Administration took office in 2016.

“Despite our recommendations being made before the joint select committee, which would have commenced as far back as 2014 and resulting in that 2018 joint select committee report, despite open letters, phone calls, e-mails to parliamentarians to date, they have done nothing…yet they have the the ability to make changes in law, but they won’t,” said Jackson.

In an open letter sent last year to all MPs and senators, led by JFJ and signed by 13 civil society organisations and 19 advocates, the group said it was deeply troubled by the fact that men still cannot be raped in law and a female who is forcibly penetrated anally receives less protection due to a lack of political will to redefine rape.

“By shifting the burden on the general population to vote on buggery by way of a referendum, Parliament has reneged on its legislative responsibility. Forced anal penetration cannot be treated less seriously than that of forced vaginal penetration; therefore, Parliament must act decisively,” the letter read.

Among those who signed the letter was executive director and co-founder of sexual victim support organisation Eve for Life, Joy Crawford.

She told the Observer on Wednesday that there is a gender bias against males in the law, as there is no such thing as male rape.

Crawford said Eve for Life supports the redefinition of rape in law to no longer leave any victim without equitable protection.

She argued that the law is limited, so any act outside of forced sex by a male to a female that involves the penis into the vagina can never be discussed as rape.

“What does that mean? It means that all other forms of sexual violation — if the person uses an object, if it’s anal sex, any other kind of sexual violation that occurs to men, women, boys, and girls in Jamaica that does not include a penis and a vagina will always carry a lesser sentence, and for some of them, nothing at all,” said Crawford.

“For us, that’s an issue, because with the limited definition as to what rape is…the women and girls that we work with as an organisation face several forms of violation that has the very same emotional and mental effects as if there was penetration…So it may be reduced in law but it’s definitely not reduced in the lived experience,” she said.

Also weighing in on the buggery issue, Crawford said that not removing it as a crime keeps men and boys at a great disadvantage in legal justice.

“Buggery is any person, man or woman, engaging in anal penetration and cannot be consented. We must stop using it as a homophobic weapon,” she said.