“What is needed is an unbiased assessment of the law, as could happen, say, in a courtroom But, as will be made clear below, you and your ilk have effectively blocked this very simple and elegant solution to this intractable problem”.
LGBT activist Maurice Tomlinson has challenged Lawyers Christian Fellowship president Shirley Richards to a debate.
This is to be welcomed. They both have valid points which should be aired to the Jamaican public.
From the LGBT point of view no doubt one may find a panel of learned judges who hold the worldview that autonomy is the highest virtue. Such a panel may well find, in the “penumbra of the law” , privacy rights to :
“farming” = removing stool from public toilets to play with http://www.hardcell.org.uk/en/playroom/scat/
scat = playing with stool, spreading it on your body and sometimes eating it etc
On the other hand Mrs. Richards may well argue that it may be best to sequester Jamaican laws from the world view of such learned judges.
I think we should “bring it on” and let the people decide.
Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:
- dirty (as in ‘into dirty’)
- on the left (wants to dump on you)
- on the right (wants to be dumped on).
What is scat?
Scat involves playing with shit, smearing it on your or his body, and sometimes eating it. It can also mean just getting off on seeing another guy dump his load.
‘Farming’ is taking shit from public toilets to play with.
What’s the attraction?
Taboos around cleanliness couldn’t be more powerfully broken by shit play: it’s everything we’ve been told not to do since childhood.
Men can be drawn to scat precisely because it provokes such a strong negative reaction in others. Lovers of scat might get a kick from stepping over what for most people is the line between what’s OK and what’s too extreme. Scat is perhaps the ultimate in sex without limits or inhibitions.
Privately we’re often fascinated by our own bowel movements and excrement. Scat lets men explore and share this interest and enjoy a special bond with other lovers of shit.
For scat fans shit can excite all the senses with its warmth, texture, smell, colour and possibly taste. Just like contact with the intimate body fluids of cum, spit or piss, sex involving shit can be a sign of intense closeness as someone is offering something that’s come from deep inside them. And in an intense power play scene, nothing is more symbolic of degradation, humiliation and control than exposure to faeces.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Maurice Tomlinson <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Response to Shirley Richards
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
|Dear editor,I would be grateful if you publish the following open letter to Ms. Shirley Richards.Dear Ms. Richards,I write with regard to your column published in today’s edition of the Jamaica Gleaner under the caption “Jamaica’s buggery law no violation of human rights, international obligations.”It is curiously convenient that after an extensive period of media appearances where you have used your legal qualifications to pass yourself off as a human rights expert (even going so far as to organize and present at human rights conferences) you finally admit your ignorance of human rights law. It is also incredibly disingenuous to cite in support of your arguments an article written by Professor Vasicannie while he was serving as Jamaica’s Deputy Solicitor General. You well know that in his capacity as government employee he was bound to support a law which he personally may have found objectionable. What is needed is an unbiased assessment of the law, as could happen, say, in a courtroom But, as will be made clear below, you and your ilk have effectively blocked this very simple and elegant solution to this intractable problem.
Be that as it may, the arguments you posited amount to a tortured interpretation of international human rights law as it relates to Jamaica’s anti-buggery law. It takes a very small mind to find it a “massive leap” of logic that our law would be violating a binding treaty we signed when a similar law was found to violate the exact same treaty. Clearly, if the Human Rights Committee (HRC) was allowed to consider Jamaica’s anti-buggery law as they were able to consider Australia’s law, the result would be the same. So to argue that the Toonen decision is not “binding” is just an indulgence in legalistic sleight of hand.
And as you also know, the Jamaican government has effectively taken away the option of the HRC reviewing our law. If states are permitted willy-nilly to ignore the recommendations of international human rights bodies, what then is the point of being signatories to treaties that fall under the purview of these bodies? Thankfully, however, the Inter-American Commission will be called upon to hear this matter as two petitions have been filed before that body seeking a determination of the law’s validity in relation to the American Convention on Human Rights. This Convention is yet another binding human rights treaty that Jamaica has signed. You also know that we could have settled this matter internally if the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF), led by you, had not convinced our Parliamentarians that the law should be saved from any review by our own local courts. The LCF website has even gone further by encouraging the government NOT to amend the anti-buggery law in any way (even to correct the gross aberration where anal rape carries a 10 year sentence while vaginal rape carries life imprisonment) as you know that would open the law up for judicial review. This would allow any court to find that criminalizing the private sexual acts of consenting adults violates basic human rights principles found in a free and democratic society.
If you are so confident about the validity of the anti-buggery law, why have you led the charge against re-enacting it in the Sexual Offences Act as well as preserving it from constitutional challenge under the Charter of Rights?
Permit me to say that, for a lawyer, you betray a studied contempt for judges and the judicial process. Instead of logical argumentation, you prefer to engage in the sort of fear mongering that pastors and politicians excel at. Why don’t you show some “intestinal fortitude” and support even a non-binding human rights review of this law by an impartial local tribunal made up of our highest judges. Surely, Shirley, that would settle the matter once and for all? Or are you just too chicken?
Finally, I understand you are a parent. Kindly tell me then if you are so committed to preserving the anti-buggery law that you would wish your adult child to be sentenced to 10 years at hard labour for engaging in consensual same-gender intimacy behind closed doors, as is currently provided for in the legislation?
Ms. Richards, I challenge you to a public debate on the validity of Jamaica’s anti-buggery law, at a mutually convenient time. The matter is certainly serious enough to warrant such public ventilation of the issues.
Former Human Rights Lecturer