Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

prop_8Former Minister of Health David Estwick was quoted on a Gay Website as saying “… legislation criminalizing homosexuality and prostitution in the Caribbean region were among difficult issues that the political directorate must take up urgently.” He did go on to be quoted “What are we going to do about reaching men who have sex with men when we have laws against their sexual activity in most Caribbean countries? “ Further investigation shows that the source of the story was the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Earlier this month Minister Chris Sinckler at an international conference in Switzerland had this to say “Barbados has made it clear to the United Nations that it will keep the death penalty and maintain its position on keeping prostitution and homosexuality illegal.” (Caribbean360.com).

Leading into the last general election former Member of Parliament Reverend Joseph Atherley and now Minister Esther Byer-Suckoo clashed heads on the issue of homosexuality. As we know homosexuality is not an issue which politicians are inclined to state a position, i.e. in Prime Minister Bruce Golding style, although Acting Minister of Education Patrick Todd came close in parliament this week by cajoling his fellow parliamentarians to declare their sexuality, especially those who declared their assets…!

Minister Todd has since attracted scorn and ridicule at his call…was he wrong?

California is held up as the barometer to mark the progress of  the Gay Agenda. The recent green light given by Californians to Proposition 8 (52.1% to 49.9%) must have been a devastating blow to the movement. In the recent news it has been reported that 18,000 same sex marriages in the state are likely to be overturned. We will leave it to the legal eagles to anticipate how the legal maneuvers around this case will shake-out. The BU household feels fairly confident that it is a bold Supreme Court that will reject the wish of the PEOPLE who voted YES to Prop 8 in the November election.

An interesting statistic which emerged from the Prop 8 vote was the high percentage of African-Americans who voted yes, was it 70%? Bottomline, the Gay Agenda has been stunned in their quest to amend existing laws to recognize same sex marriages. One thing we know about the Gay Lobby is its persistence, they will be back.

A few weeks ago we thought we heard Peter Wickham making a telling observation. He grumbled while on national radio, he was the host of the afternoon talk show, that Black people seem to have issues! We sensed his frustration when  forced to comment on the outcome of the Prop 8 vote. What we found interesting was his willingness to shift his target from the backward Barbadian to the Black race.

The simple point we hope to make: homosexuality and immigration are hot button issues which are being engaged internationally. They are some people who would want Barbadians to believe that on these issues we are hillbillies and stand alone.



Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

69 responses to “Proposition 8 Turns To Hate: The Implication”


  1. This issue should be discussed with some sensitivity and I hope fellow bloggers will understand that, however strongly held is your position, perhaps we can respect each other.


  2. David and Yardbroom, I am certain that you cannot discuss the two issues together as one issue.

    My position on the immigration issue is clear. As for the homosexuality issue, I have close relatives who are gay and they are some of the most decent, upright people I know. Indeed, Barbados owes a tremendous debt to gay people who have helped it and even been members of government – and don’t tell me the electorate who elected them did not know they were gay. In the 21st Century, gay and being gay are non-issues. Immigration, however, IS an issue. The BU family and BU’s contributors are of way above average intellegence and I would really like to see comments here that might possibly open new windows on the immigration issue and actually assist government in its policies. It may not happen, but it would be nice if it did.

    Yardbroom has started the ball rolling and attempted to set what I think is an excellent direction. I really hope his plea will be heeded. It could be an excellent and productive discussion. I would like to hear from Chris Halsall on this one.


  3. 52.1% + 49.9% = 102%


  4. Thanks Math Skills its was a typo. Next time the BU family might appreciate if you checked and posted the correct information. This would add value.


  5. I did have a look, but there were too many different versions of results for me to feel confident about posting one.

  6. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    David, here are the list of previous threads that dealt with this issue. The links to related posts which normally follow your blog entries, were missing… I think it is useful feature, particularly for new readers. In a previous life (the PSYOPS years LOL) I might have attempted to psychoanalyse your preoccupation with this subject 🙂

    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/homosexuality-in-barbados/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/veoma-ali-kareen-clarke/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/homosexuality-gays-barbados/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/our-quest-to-understand-homosexual-behaviour-continues/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/gay-tourists-coming/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/the-churchs-big-secret/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/the-gay-agenda-threatens-to-destablize-modern-societies/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/gays-are-people-too/
    http://bajan.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/homosexuality-and-barbadiansthe-fear-of-an-orderly-society/

    The immigration issue has also been debated at length here, but in my opinion, on every occasion the discussion has been sabotaged by outrageously bigoted opinions. Oddly enough, I don’t think a single person on this blog has spoke out in support of being lenient or offering amnesty to illegal immigrants (as happens in many other countries where illegal immigration is viewed as a major issue)… so, it would seem, everyone on this blog is in agreement that there should be a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to illegal immigration. I would therefore expect the discussion to proceed along the lines of proposing solutions like:
    1 Keeping pressure on government to seriously address the issue. The immigration department should be required to report on, and be held accountable for the level of illegal immigration.
    2 Harsher penalties for anyone caught employing an illegal immigrant… do any penalties actually exist now?
    3 An improved immigration information system. The names of individuals who have not been logged as having left the country by the requisite date should be automatically (electronically) logged on the police ‘wanted for questioning’ list.
    4 The names of all illegal immigrants logged by the immigration information system should be periodically Gazetted and listed on a web site, for easy reference by potential employers, landlords, school administrations etc.

    David, your tolerance (or ‘open’ moderation policy) for the views of bloggers who, rather than stick to the subject, veer off on rants against persons of different races or ethnicity, could be misconstrued as being sympathetic toward their ‘cause’. Do you believe that the race or ethnicity of an applicant should factor in the decision on whether he/she should be granted a work permit or legal migrant entry into Barbados?


  7. We are listening to the Sunday Talk Show with rap attention. We have found it to be, for a change, to be brutally frank about the issues facing Barbados and the region. We even agreed with some of what Peter Wickham said when he called into the program. We depart from his comment when he said Minister Todd may have trivialized the serious debate by asking his colleagues to declare their sexual orientation. He should have gone further by asking his colleagues to declare how many commit adultery and fornication. For those who think that our politicians should renege on their duty as leaders in our society and to hide on the moral issues are being hypocritical.
    Our view like many is that we need to pick a few issues and use them as flagship issues to move the debate/change forward. At the moment as a society the blame culture continues to multiply. In the coming year we will be focusing on adultery and fornication in our society. These behaviours continue to feed rapid increase in HIV/AIDS infections.
     


  8. As said earlier, there are much more important issues to be dealt with in this country, like the economy.

    Do any of us really care if any of our elected figures, or anyone else for that matter, share their bed(s) with someone from the same sex?


  9. Tourism Monkey you see nothing wrong with the hypocrisy of the Barbadian politician who wants to stay in the closet to protect their sexual orientation? How do you feel that politicians in the developed world are COMING out of the closet and defending their sexual preference? Isn’t that the honest thing to do? It is because of attitudes like yours that our politicians treat us like crap. If an elected politician is a homosexual then they should be man or woman enough to declare it and defend the position. It is the only way this issue of homosexuality will move forward. Why do you think this topic always generate so much debate?


  10. LOL

    BU
    BU(LL)

    If gay politicians NEED to speak up on their sexual orientation then u must agree that fornicating and adilterating politicians should also speak up about their bedroom details. I said details and that is what I mean. There are known homosexuals in both camps. They are known adulterers and fornicators in both camps. There is a NONSEXUAL in the DLP so he fah sure can declare his orientation since he gets none.

    I dont see how BU wants to foist puritanical fundamentalists ideals on a coutry ( BARBADOS) that has NEVER had that tradition!

    I can only laugh when you spout this usual nonsense!


  11. @MME

    Harsher penalties for anyone caught employing an illegal immigrant… do any penalties actually exist now?
    ***************************************

    Cheez on bread, they just build a new prison and now you want to ensure it is overcrowded, unless you have a new minimum secure facility in mind for the rich and famous. There can’t be any penalties didn’t the former PM admit to employing illegal immigrants? He wouldn’t break the law would he ?


  12. @MME

    We are not racist!


  13. David, a declaration of homosexuality in Barbados amounts to a declaration that you are engaging in unlawful acts, viz. buggery! Which MP would admit to a criminal offence?

  14. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    @David: I know you are not racist. I suspect you have misinterpreted the intent of my last paragraph, but will leave it at that, as I sense, like Nelly say “it getting hot in here” 🙂

    Man, I wish I could communicate like dat fella Yardbroom…


  15. @Juris

    Would the declaration made under parliamentary privilege not apply? 🙂


  16. @ David,

    No, this privilege protects what you say from being inquired into in any court, but it would not prevent the stigma of criminality and maybe investigation by the police.


  17. Thanks Juris, so we come full circle to what former Health Minister is quoted as saying. How can we confront men on men sex if the law does not allow people to come out of the closet? If we change the law there is the feeling who believe that this is a deviant behaviour that it would become pervasive. So where do we go from here? Whose move?

  18. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Juris, are there any laws against employing illegal immigrants in Barbados? If there are, do you know what the penalties are?


  19. Sorry for the late response, MME. Yes, section 17(2) of the Immigration Act makes the employment of a person without a work permit an offence and the fine, I think, is $5, 000 or 12 months in prison or both. However, certain people do not need work permits, but then again you did ask about ILLEGAL immigrants.

  20. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    Thanks Juris.

    I just found the Immigration Act online here (for anyone interested in the details): http://www.barbadosbusiness.gov.bb/miib/Legislation/documents/immigration_act_cap190.pdf

    You are right about the penalty… section 30 of the Act.

  21. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    If I understand section 17(B) to 17(D) correctly, none of the following require work permits to work in Barbados provided their State proides reciprocal treatment to Barbadians:
    :: graduates of UWI, the University of Guyana or the University of Suriname, or ANY other institution approved by the Minister responsible for education.
    :: ANYONE who is taking up employment with a SPECIFIC employer or embarking on employment as a SELF-EMPLOYED person.
    :: The above may be accompanied by a spouse, minor children and other dependent relatives, who are not allowed to work, unless they themselves satisfy the conditions of 17(B).

    LOL… interesting.

  22. Micro Mock Engineer Avatar
    Micro Mock Engineer

    … I should add, that in terms of the State reciprocity mentioned above, this only applies to: Antigua & Barbuda, Montserrat, Belize, St. Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Guyana, Suriname, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago.


  23. Cuhdear me you wrote “There is a NONSEXUAL in the DLP so he fah sure can declare his orientation since he gets none.”

    Don’t tantalize us so. Name names. You mean with so much Viagra and Cialis stirring there is a man left in Barbados who don’t get any?

    Tell us who this loser is?


  24. David you wrote “there is the feeling who believe that this is a deviant behaviour that it would become pervasive”

    Does anybody really think that if the law is changed that heterosexuals will all of a sudden take up bulling and wicking?

    If the law changes we will have the EXACT same number of bullers and wickers as before.


  25. Juris wrote “David, a declaration of homosexuality in Barbados amounts to a declaration that you are engaging in unlawful acts, viz. buggery! Which MP would admit to a criminal offence?”

    I am sure that the good Juris knows that wicking is NOT unlawful in Barbados, so therefore all the wickers in the house can safely declare.

    But I don’t want to know anybody’s sex business.


  26. Barbados is a small country and the sexual habits of politicains are known to those who are really interested in knowing such things.
    Why does it sound as though the DLP is still on the campaign trail?

    Political gimmickry in Barbados should be easily recognized. My patience is wearing thin.


  27. J,
    Ya bad. De body is a loser caws he/she in gettin nun? Da got a lot a losers out day den. (Bonny included) Chawwwww.
    Look at it dis way, when ya abstain/refrain, AIDS chan kill ya; i’ve heard said.


  28. David,

    It’s people like me that like to look at the REAL issues and see how they are dealt with that informs my opinion on politicians.

    As someone said earlier, its all gimmickry.

    What’s the best way to divert attention from an important issue?

    Simple, conjure up an extremely contraversial topic that will get tongues wagging. If the tongues are busy wagging about that then its hard for them to wag about something else, aint it?


  29. I watched this topic and had actually written the first comment but did not submit. I decided that I would wait to see how it played out.

    Are we hypocritical or what? Am I missing something here then?

    Where on the statute books would one find that homosexuality is illegal? I am sorry but I cannot find it.

    If I am correct, why are we discussing it as though it is illegal? Please put it in perspective.

    However, it would be good to know how we treat same sex couples, married in other jurisdictions? What about polygamous relationships? Is Government bound to recognise them when they land here as husband and wives? Of course, there are other issues and implications here.

    For example, in same sex marriages is one partner designated wife or husband? In polygamous relationships, how would the law treat more than one wife (maybe the two or three wives as one and the same???). Just throwing it out.


  30. @ROK

    Some important points you have raised. When will Barbados be ready to confront them?


  31. @ROK, you will look and look and not find on the statute books that HOMOSEXUALITY per se is illegal; but buggery is- Sexual Offences Act 1992.


  32. Buggery ( anal sex) is illegal. Is it illegal between consenting heterosexuals? Could the girls that like to trunk be arrested for this activity?

    all I know is that if we start peeing into peoples bedrooms we will be shocked by the sorts of activity that does go on…. missionary position what!!!


  33. Yes, me, buggery in all forms (even with animals) is illegal and consent is no defence.


  34. What does the BU family think about the position of the Pope regarding Gender Theory. His thesis is that the confusion which the world has with homosexuality and transexuality will lead to the extinction of the human race.


  35. Sure that will happen… and I’m sure that another super human race will replace them. Life will go on…so not to worry! LOL!

    So I guess this means that EVERy straight person will turn gay, including you, BU if gays are afforded equal rights and equal treatment. Stuupse!

    Look our birthrate has plummetted as we have become more developed , as women have begun to take their place in the workforce does that mean the the human race will become extinct if women become the main bread winners???


  36. Homosexuality is not a gender issue. Homosexuality is not an issue of someone loving another of the same gender. These are smoke herring points put out there to obfuscate the core of the issue. And that is, the acceptance of people’s rights to choose the source or object for their sexual gratification.

    There is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same gender, living with them, or doing the kids of non sexual things with them that traditionally occured between two people of different genders. There is nothin immoral, unethical, or objectionable about that. The issue is whether it is okay and natural for humans to seek sexual gratification outside of the traditional reproductive process. If we agree that it is okay for that to happen, then fine, change the laws. But we need to stop the assinine venturisms that pretend this issue is about non copulation.

    Is it possible to draft laws that remove restrictions of sexual conduct without opening a pandora’s box of propabilities? I know today people will scream that I am equating homosexuality with perversions. I am not. I am equating it with sexual freedoms. And I am simply asking the question of whether we will limit this freedom to homosexuality, and if later on there arises another claim for diversity with the same arguments, what will we do then?


  37. Why is Peter Wickham so concerned when he perceives an attack on the rights of Homosexuals?


  38. And, why do some cry “hate” and “discrimination” when the gay lifestyle is questioned?


  39. me

    Where did you get your definition of buggery from? That is not correct. Buggery is an act of violence like rape and usually done with a foreign object such as a stick or other protrusive object.

    Or, historically, meaning when done with a penis as an act of vengance and not love or to establish domination over the victim and was made illegal for these very reason kinds of reasons. It was so abhorrent even to think of. Current Jamaica Law: http://www.jflag.org/bodyspirit/rights.htm

    Buggery is also against the law in USA but not homosexuality. There was a case where some policemen in Manhattan, USA, were convicted of buggery against an African man. They did it with their batons and left the man for dead. He survived to tell the tale. (Not finding the case immediately)

    While for those jurisdictions which are explicit in their legal provisions, the term buggery connotes a more modern meaning, this is not so in our jurisdiction, which is based on English Law. The amount of legal provisions in our Sexual Offenses Act which can get around buggery, renders buggery like a roundabout; too many roads around it.

    In terms of the legal interpretation of this word, it would seem that a case of buggery succeeds where the act is gross, repulsive, corruptible and violent rather than consensual or merely indecent.


  40. Juris

    consent is no defense with children. The real burden is proof of penetration.


  41. ROK,

    I have admired your recent lay forays into legal matters. You are sadly mistaken, however, re the legal definition os buggery. It is simply intercourse per anum, no need for force. See Sexual Offences Act 1992. And re consent; what I am saying is that even between two consenting adults in private, buggery is still an offence. And male homosexuality is not against the law, it is the acts that they engage in. As for buggery in some jurisdictions in the US, this is no longer illegal between two consenting adult males in private.


  42. As I thought Juris.

    FYI The NYPD did bugger Louima ( a haitian immigrant0 but without his consent and with a mop stick. He won many millions and is now a wealthy man living in Florida.

    Rape is an act of violence not of sex per se…


  43. Juris

    I am holding my ground on buggery as a roundabout in the middle of the highway, although, I will consent to your lead for now; a question of interpretation and practical application.

    If a policeman happened upon two homosexuals in private in the act, do you think he would succeed with the prosecution of any of them?


  44. @ ROK,

    He probably wouldn’t even arrest them; and even if he did,I suspect that the DPP would not prosecute, and even if he did, would a jury convict?


  45. Juris is absolutely correct. The offence under Barbadian Law was Un-Natural Act: The abominable crime of buggery with a human, or bestiality with an animal. The Cops in the Abner Louima issue were charged with Felony assault. Buggery involves the penetration of the male organ into the anus of another, either with or without concent.

    Homosexuality is buggery. Break the term down and define it separately and it comes to the same thing. Homosexuality has nothing to do with love. It defines same gender sexual interaction.

    If a policeman happens upon two persons consensually involved in a homosexual act his restraint would be on the basis of political correctness rather than any doubt or confusion as to what the law says. This constant re-defining of terms like “gay” and “homosexual”in pursuit of obfuscating the un-natural image of same gender sex is being taken too far.

    Again, there are no laws, religious or legal, against two people of the same gender loving one another. The laws, both religious and other wise are against sexual practices that are un-natural. If nature had intended for the anus to be used as a vagina is, it would have provided men with uterus and fallopian tubes.

    The issue is that some people are claiming the right sexual gratification in the manner they choose. That’s it in nutshell. The question is if that right becomes legally and socially acceptable, what arguments will we mount when the pedophiles present their case or claims.


  46. @me

    Call Barbadians what you will but be assured that the gay agenda will not sneak up on Barbadians. BU will be singing lustily from the front seat of the choir.


  47. How can homosexuality between consenting adults and paedophilia with an unconsenting or unable to consent minor be equated?


  48. They can be equated if you are fearmongering …


  49. juris asked
    How can homosexuality between consenting adults and paedophilia with an unconsenting or unable to consent minor be equated?
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Because homosexuality is about the right to choose how to satisfy ones sexual urge. The struggle of homosexuals is for their choice of copulation to be social acceptable to the same degree that the traditional heteorosexual reproductive practice is. Why is that too difficult to understand.

    Pedophiles like to satisfy their sexual urges my copulating with children. Period

    Now both Homosexuality and Pedophelia were traditionally considered as unlawful deviant conduct, and people were and are still being prosecuted for them. The homosexual agenda has succeeded in breaking down traditional opposition over the years, and has even become socially acceptable in many societies. Already there are pedophile organizations like NAMBLA who have begun making the argument that they too should be allowed to practice their choice.

    One each side of the equation is a sexual practice that has traditionally been outlawed and regarded as socially repugnant. The context is not about consenting adults and whatnot. That is irrelevant. The context is about sexual practices that were considered socially repugnant traditionally, and the logical progression that can be inferred from one becoming more and more socially acceptable.


  50. It is interesting that Wickham has argued vehemently that NAMBLA does not exist (when it fact it does!). I agree with Daniels’ post which makes the point that legal or statuatory acceptence of homosexuality is the thin edge of the wedge to “acceptence” of other sexual deviances. The Texas attorney general argued the same point in a case involving 2 gay men. The supreme court of the US however did not agree and overturned the law against buggery between consenting adults.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading