heterosexuals for jamaica

[blugiant]

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/images/god-centered_0159_250.jpg

In Jamaica: MassResistance speech at pro-family rally on "gay rights" threat, broadcast live on national radio.

Huge battle there over repeal of statute outlawing homosexual behavior.
POSTED: December 29, 2013

On International Human Rights Day, December 10, Brian Camenker of MassResistance went to Jamaica and delivered a stirring speech at a pro-family rally in Kingston, warning citizens about the slippery slope effects that would come with legalizing homosexual behavior, now being considered by the Jamaican governent. The speech was broadcast live over national radio.

The homosexual movement wanted to use International Human Rights Day strictly to promote their cause. But these Jamaicans had another plan!

Camenker was the main speaker at the rally, held in Emancipation Park in Kingston by the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS), Over 400 people attended.

Camenker outlined -- point by point -- the progression that followed once homosexuality was legalized everywhere else -- and would surely happen in Jamaica. After legalization comes: gay pride parades; non-discrimination laws; homosexuals' adoption of children; the homosexual agenda in schools; forcing "gay marriage" on society; public funding to deal with increased homosexual-related social problems; the transgender agenda; large-scale loss of free speech; ban on counseling for kids with homosexual issues; and attacks on churches.

After the presentation, one Jamaican activist emailed us: "Your arrival here was timely and most appreciated. The feedback from your talk continued on radio the next day and I know that the MC of the show certainly was shocked to discover what has been taking place."

Besides Camenker's keynote speech, the 2½ hour event included songs, dances, and several powerful speeches about morality and God's laws. The attendees were very enthusiastic and energetic on this issue. At the end of the event, they eagerly commenced a nationwide petition drive to stop the legalization efforts.

By many accounts, the MassResistance speech was a big boost for the pro-family battle going on right now in Jamaica.

TV Video report. Jamaica's television also reported
on Camenker's speech!
Jamaica-TV

Outrage over push to overturn Jamaica's "Buggery Law"

At issue is a recent push to overturn the country's 150-year-old law against homosexual behavior. The statute (Sec. 76 of the Crimes Against Persons Act) is universally known in Jamaica as "the Buggery Law," after the British terminology. Jamaica is one of about a dozen Caribbean countries where anti-sodomy laws are currently on the books.

Prime Minister's announcement. In early June 2013, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller announced that she is considering having the Parliament take a "conscience vote" on a review of the Buggery Law during the current legislative session which ends March 31, 2014.

This is widely seen as a reaction to growing pressure from the Obama Administration and the Cameron Administration in Britain to force Jamaica to promote "LGBT rights." This has included threats from both countries to withhold foreign aid to nations like Jamaica that continue to hold the line.

Supreme Court case. In addition, this past June the country's Supreme Court agreed to hear a case by a homosexual activist claiming that the Buggery Law violates Jamaica's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The case began Oct. 4 and is continuing.

The sense that we get talking to Jamaicans who've been following the case closely is that the homosexuals have a very weak legal case and a slim chance of succeeding (unlike in other countries).

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/index.html

[blugiant]

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/images/np-banner_510.jpg

Strong pro-family outcry from churches and groups

Jamaica has a very strong religious community, and churches and pro-family groups have been very active in opposing any change to the law. They have seen what has happened in other countries such as the U.S. and fear that this would be the beginning of a total assault on the Jamaican culture.

Compared to the United States and other countries, church groups and pro-family activists have been very outspoken and pretty fearless in opposition to the homosexual agenda. There have been pro-family marches, speeches, media appearances, newspaper ads, and a general political awakening to the issue. Church groups are also directly involved in the Supreme Court case.
Jamaican homosexual movement much weaker than in U.S.

On the other hand, since homosexuality is technically illegal the homosexual groups are relatively weak and not able to intimidate and harass the way they can in other places. Sadly, much of the homosexual movement's funding and support in Jamaica comes from the US government and also through the United Nations, which outrages many Jamaicans.

In addition, since Jamaica has never had homosexuality pushed in the schools or in their island culture, the public has not been swayed on this issue as in other places.
Public relations war starts

Nevertheless, Jamaican homosexuals have begun a fairly strong public-relations campaign in the media to support repeal of the Buggery Law, with their own op-ed articles, letters to the editor, advertisements, banners, and more. Much of it appears to be funded by various United Nations organizations.

Their main points have included: (1) "Loving" someone else is an international human right. (2) Criminalizing homosexuality causes a stigma and keeps homosexuals from getting "safe sex" help, thus more AIDS is caused. (3) There is violence against homosexuals triggered by the current Buggery Law.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/images/np-ad-opp_300.jpg

This slick full-page ad by the homosexual movement appeared in Jamaican newspapers, meant to soften the public on the "human rights" and "justice" aspects of repealing the Buggery Law. Note the logos for United Nations-affiliated groups on the bottom, which appear to be funding this campaign





The pro-family groups and churches strongly dispute all of those points. Among other things, they point out the overwhelming loss of religious freedom and freedom of speech, and the actual statistics on disease. And there is very strong evidence that the overwhelming amount of violence against homosexuals in Jamaica is committed by other homosexuals.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/images/np-ad-jc_340.jpg

This full-page ad by Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society also appeared in Jamaican newspapers, countering the homosexual campaign. They do not mince words --they tell the "real truth" to the Jamaican people!

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/images/chart_450.jpg

Countering the lies. The Jamaican homosexual movement says that
the current Buggery Law causes more AIDS. But the JCHS research
reveals that in fact the opposite is true.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/13d/jamaica-speech-121013/index.html

[blugiant]

fiyah ann more fiyah

oonnoo fe go watch de youtube ting

Sex, Lies and Rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvHD9edam0A

[blugiant]

'We're not crazy' - Local lobby defends anti-homosexuality views; rejects 'homophobic' label


Amid a growing tolerance worldwide of the gay community, a local advocacy coalition has launched an impassioned defence of persons and groups pressing ahead with the condemnation of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Wayne West, chairman of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, has declared that it is an insult, a great disservice and thoroughly unacceptable to label persons who are against homosexual behaviour as insane.

"To say persons who are against homosexual behaviour are homophobic is to say they have a mental illness. The very definition of phobia is an irrational fear of something. We are not mentally ill by any means, we are very rational," West told The Gleaner yesterday.

"Homosexuality is fundamentally discordant. It does not reflect a design in nature. There is a design in nature where men and women are complementary. We are against homosexual behaviour because it has negative consequences on society overall, it does not serve the common good. Data consistently shows that same-sex behaviour has harmful effects on both the persons involved as well as the society in general. Just look at the immeasurable data with the HIV/AIDS epidemic."

He added: "So to say we are all mad and irrational is an insult. 'Homophobia' was deliberately constructed by a psychologist to make persons against any same-sex act to have a phobia, which in medical language is a mental illness."

Yesterday the coalition took out a full-page advertisement in The Gleaner, declaring that 'Speaking Truth is NOT Homophobia', but that it is common sense, medical sense and economic sense.

Urging persons to reject the homosexual lifestyle, the advertisement quoted statistics from researchers at Johns Hopkins Center University for AIDS Research in the United States, published in the medical journals Lancet and AIDS Behaviour.

Among the findings quoted were that 98 per cent of the difference in HIV rates between MSM (men who have sex with men) and heterosexuals can be explained by anal receptive intercourse; MSM is the only group with increasing HIV in countries of all income levels; HIV is out of control among MSM in France; HIV rates in black MSM are 100 times that of the general population in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada; and HIV is disproportionately high and increasing among MSM in the US, despite significant increases in 'rights'.

Evidence clear

"We think it is important that in public discussion facts are brought to bear rather than simple ideology. And these are the facts that there is clear medical evidence that same-sex intimate behaviour among MSM is detrimental, these are the reasons why we reject it, not because we are all mad," West stated.

He said the main reason for the 'irrational' label was to silence the discussion.

"What we have found is that in countries where this political homosexual lobby is advancing, they seek to silence you. You are labelled as homophobic, you are mad, you are not worth listening to, your opinion is of no consequence. But these are fundamental sociological changes and we must have these discussions," he stated.

"Fight evidence with evidence. If you have a problem with what we are saying, then bring the evidence, don't just dismiss us as mentally ill."

He said the coalition chose to speak out at this time to add to the recent discussions surrounding International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, commemorated on May 17.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130527/lead/lead1.html

[blugiant]

Jamaica's buggery law no violation of human rights, international obligations


Shirley Richards, Guest Columnist

Maurice Tomlinson, in his article 'Tragic case of ignorance' (Gleaner, December 11, 2012), said: "In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee found that a law similar to Jamaica's which criminalised the right of consenting adults to engage in their private acts of intimacy was a violation of the rights to privacy, as well as protection from cruel and inhuman treatment, and the right to equality before the law. By maintaining the anti-buggery law, Jamaica is, therefore, in violation of its human-rights obligations ... ."

It is quite likely that Mr Tomlinson was referring to the Tasmanian case involving Nicholas Toonen, an Australian citizen living in the state of Tasmania. The committee did rule, inter alia, that the Tasmanian law was in breach of the right to privacy under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

What is of concern, however, is that Mr Tomlinson has made a mammoth jump from referring to this decision to the conclusion that "Jamaica is, therefore, in violation of its human-rights obligations". It is the accuracy of this conclusion which I seek to challenge.

However, being conscious of my place, as being neither a human-rights lecturer nor the daughter of one, I have decided to quote extensively from an article which was written by Professor Steven Vasciannie and published in The Gleaner on May 22, 2006. (Professor Vasciannie is now ambassador to the United States).

This is what Professor Vasciannie had to say then in response to the same or, at the very least, a similar argument which was being made by a Human Rights Watch representative:

I take it, therefore, that the Human Rights Watch representative was arguing that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises the right to privacy, and the Human Rights Committee has said that homosexual rights are part of the right to privacy: therefore, Jamaica is in breach of the Covenant, and in breach of international law.

Flawed arguments

This is misleading advocacy. First, the United Nations Human Rights Committee is not a court of law. When it considers cases, it makes recommendations to countries; these recommendations are not binding in the way that the decision of a court is binding in law. In fact, for cases including the Toonen case, the Human Rights Committee is mandated only to "put forward its views to the state party concerned and to the individual" (First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, Article 5(4)). Putting forward views is hardly the language of binding commitment.

States - including Jamaica - have never accepted that views put forward by the Human Rights Committee amount to law. So, the Human Rights Watch representative is simply wrong when she implies that the Toonen case creates a binding obligation on Jamaica in international law.

Second, if we assume - incorrectly - that the Human Rights Committee could actually make law, the approach taken in the Toonen case would still be vulnerable as a statement of the law. In summary form, international law is identified by reference to treaties, custom and general principles of law recognised by 'civilised' nations. There is no treaty that expressly states that homosexual sex must be regarded as lawful.

Custom, as evidenced by the general practice of countries, does not support the right to this activity: for countries leave each other to determine what their local laws will be on the subject. And, there has never been a general principle accepted by countries as applicable to the issue.

Thus, the application of orthodox principles of international law suggests that the Human Rights Committee could not have reasonably reached the conclusion that there is an international law right to homosexual activity.

Finally, I think that the Human Rights Watch representative has confused herself by mixing up what she wants international law to say with what international law actually says. No treaty requires Jamaica to recognise homosexual sex as lawful. She wants a different conclusion, so she relies on the recommendation of the Human Rights Committee, as if recommendations are binding law. They are not.

To the best of my knowledge, the principles of international law enunciated by Professor Vasciannie in 2006 are still the same in 2012. So whether or not Mr Tomlinson was referring to the Toonen decision, it seems clear, based on Professor Vasciannie's article, that by maintaining its anti-buggery law, Jamaica is not in violation of either human rights or international law obligations.

Shirley Richards is an attorney-at-law and member of Lawyers Christian Fellowship.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121219/cleisure/cleisure4.html

[blugiant]

Shirley Richards' Paranoia on buggery/possible future gay marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiIjmj9kJds

[blugiant]

British Investigator Says Jamaican Homosexual Murders Are Mostly Gay-on-Gay Violence



“All of those murders that I have investigated have been in [homosexual] relationships and are victims of gay attacks, domestic situations.” – British investigator and former Scotland Yard detective Les Green, July 8, 2012



Folks, the 2012 Jamaica Observer article below about gay-on-gay violence in Jamaica is critically important in that it debunks the oft-repeated charge by homosexual activists that anti-homosexual “hate violence” is widespread in Jamaica. [See this hateful "Truth Wins Out" article about Jamaica and AFTAH that stokes the same false polemic.]

Every time a homosexual is murdered in Jamaica, the local “gay” group, J-FLAG (Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays) and other homosexual activists blame “homophobia” — and implicitly (or explicitly) the actions of religious opponents of the “gay” agenda for the crime. Meanwhile, Christian groups like the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) condemn all violence against homosexuals.

This victim mongering copies a tactic that LGBT activists have used in the United States for decades to advance their agenda. (Think Matthew Shepard, who was allegedly murdered “because he is gay”; later it was learned that his murder was linked to his reckless lifestyle, including drug dealing.) Even worse, many times American homosexuals have staged fake “anti-gay hate crime” hoaxes to burnish their status as victims needing to be protected from (religious-motivated) “hate.” [See this AFTAH item on a "hate-crime" hoax staged by a Nebraska lesbian.]

A personal note: having just returned from a visit to Jamaica to take part in a pro-family conference put on by JCHS, I did not witness any “hatred” or violent attitudes toward homosexuals. What I did see was a group of sincere, dedicated Christians who love God and are fighting the best they can not to have decadent Western (and American) sexual mores and LGBT laws imposed on their small nation. We must expose and rebut the insidious lie of LGBT activists everywhere that imputes “hate” to those who merely disagree with grantin “rights” based on disordered, sinful sexual behavior. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

peeps kno da trooth butt dem still a trii fe stereotype decent jamaicans fe push homosexualitee agendas