The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – Re-affirming the Equality of Human Dignity

“The preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining

Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the

supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the

Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make

Canada a theocracy…” per Muldoon J (Federal Court of Canada)

 

For the second time in fewer than two years, a regional court has declared that the criminalization of act of buggery between consenting adult males in private is unconstitutional.

In August 2016, in Caleb Orozco v the Attorney General of Belize, the Supreme Court of that jurisdiction ruled that section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code that criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with a dissuasive penalty of ten years imprisonment, sought to include within its ambit consensual sexual conduct between adult males in private and thus disproportionately impacted on the lives of gay men thereby violating their constitutionally guaranteed rights to dignity, privacy, equality before the law and non-discrimination on the grounds of sex. Nor could such legislation be deemed justifiable on the basis of a vague public morality. Moreover, it was inconsistent with Belize’s international treaty obligations that served to inform the interpretation of the Constitutional text.

On Thursday last, in Trinidad & Tobago, Mr Justice Rampersad similarly declared that sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 in that jurisdiction were unconstitutional, illegal, null, void, invalid and of no effect to the extent that these laws criminalized any acts constituting consensual sexual conduct between adults. So far as is relevant, these sections read:

13 (1) A person who commits the offence of buggery is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twenty-five years

13(2) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

16 (1) A person who commits an act of serious indecency on or towards another is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of serious indecency committed in private between—

(a) a husband and his wife;

(b) a male person and a female person each of whom is sixteen years of age or more, both of whom consent to the commission of the act; or

(c) persons to whom section 20(1) and (2) and (3) of the Children Act apply.

(3) An act of “serious indecency” is an act, other than sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural), by a person involving the use of the genital organs for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire.

It might be of interest to note that section 14, which criminalizes bestiality, carries a maximum penalty of fifteen (15) years, perhaps to signal the official revulsion felt at the act of buggery as opposed to that of bestiality. Also to be noted in this connection is that section 16 may criminalize lesbianism as an act of serious indecency.

I have not had the opportunity so far to read the text of his judgment, but it would be interesting to see how Rampersad J managed to avoid the strictures of the savings (existing) law clause, section 6 of the Trinidad & Tobago Republican Constitution, that is similar to our section 26.

However, on a perusal of the Sexual Offences Act, itself enacted in 1986, I note that both sections 13 and 16 were amended in 2000 and again in 2012. In order to satisfy the definition of an existing law therefore and to preserve their immunity from constitutional query, these amendments would have had to satisfy the stipulations in subsections 1(b) and 1(c) of section 6-

6. (1) Nothing in sections 4 and 5 shall invalidate—

1. (a) an existing law;

(b) an enactment that repeals and re-enacts an existing law without alteration; or

(c) an enactment that alters an existing law but does not derogate from any fundamental right guaranteed by this Chapter in a manner in which or to an extent to which the existing law did not previously derogate from that right.

To the contrary, in Barbados, I do not recall that the relevant law in section 9 of the local Sexual Offences Act, Cap 154, has ever been amended since 1966, in which case it would be clearly an existing law and thus susceptible to constitutional query as being in conflict with the fundamental rights provisions of our supreme law.

While both the Belizean and Trinidadian decisions would be likely to raise eyebrows in Barbados, they are both consonant with the international human rights law on the matter.

In Nicholas Toonen v. Australia the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that a statute of the State of Tasmania prohibiting sexual contact between consenting adult men in private was in violation of the ICPR’s articles including that of non-discrimination on the basis of sex; Article 2. In subsequent rulings and observations the Committee has criticized laws that discriminate against sexual minorities in the United States.

Sexual orientation is also a ground expressly protected from discrimination in Canada and South Africa.

In Toonen, the UNHRC found it “undisputed that adult consensual sexual activity in private is covered by the concept of privacy …” The Tasmanian authorities challenged this on the basis that the laws proscribing homosexual activity were justified on public health and moral grounds, since they were intended in part to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Tasmanian. However the Committee stated that:

“The Government of Australia observes that statutes criminalizing homosexual activity tend to impede public health programmes “by driving underground many of the people at the risk of infection”. Criminalization of homosexual activity thus would appear to run counter to the implementation of effective education programmes in respect of the HIV/AIDS prevention. Secondly, the Committee notes that no link has been shown between the continued criminalization of homosexual activity and the effective control of the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus”.

And in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Northern Ireland’s anti-sodomy laws constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to private life guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention. This was so because it caused “detrimental effects on the life of a person of homosexual orientation like the applicant”. According to the Court:

“A person’s sexual activities involve the most intimate aspect of private life so there must exist serious reasons before interferences on the part of the public authorities can be legitimate for the purpose of Article 8”.

It was claimed in response by Northern Ireland that the law protected public morals and the rights and freedoms of others. However, the ECHR ruled that though the laws did in fact serve these aims, they were unnecessary (not necessary) to achieve these aims in a democratic society and thus not proportionate.

I will return to further discussion of this matter in next week’s Musings.

To be continued…

68 comments

  • Too late the horse has already bolted. The power to control our morals and ethics has reached a level of mind control beyond and above how we think as individuals.A new unethical way of thinking has engulf our mortal souls way beyond our comprehension to combat and to reverse .Our souls which were designed and created by a Creator to embraced righteouness is now being programmed to embrace that wrong is right and right is wrong.
    God help us all.

    Like

  • geez Jeff you have been able to sew God,Canada and somebody’s ass visiting Tasmania together and almost make it seem interesting. We at the MPFUI ( more pussy for us institute) have always been proponents of gay rights and live and let live. Just curious how much anum per annum do lawyers get for arguing this stuff in Barbados.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Gosh ac yardfowl/marisopa, ya so boring, get out of consenting adults private lives already…mind ya business..

    Like

  • @Jeff

    It is correct to say that this matter is being appealed by the TT government? To celebrate is therefore premature?

    Are you saying that Barbados is a signatory to the International Human Rights law?

    Like

  • It remains amazing how modern colonialism works.

    Anything the freaks in the West want they can have

    It’s amazing how the reverse never or seldom happens.

    What is more is that they can have armies of titularly intelligent people and established systems supporting the narratives they see as dominant, or transitioning thereto.

    International funding from USAID etc is not linked to the legitimization of bulling, even in an age of Trumpism.

    So bulling gains general acceptability but age old indignities to consciousness like racism, classism, militarism, poverty take a back seat – pun intended!

    Bulling, as a fundamental assault against nature, Herself, has been normalized. Such is the acid test of theur capabilities. And if we can be so moved, is there anything else we cannot be made to accept under the cloak of a fallacious ‘human dignity’.

    That consent has been manufactured – Chomsky!

    That normalization follows the script for manufacturing consent as written by Bernays, Lippmann et al. Marketers, as the most vile creatures on earth.

    So when Pachamama talks about the guillotine and need for its liberal application these are the ones to see us as irrational.

    They can legislate what the *uck they like. But until we see a man who can breed another man or a woman who can breed another woman, we say ^uck off.

    The law was always an ass, anyway!

    Like

  • https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-lawyer-burns-himself-to-death-in-protest/ar-AAvTG9i?ocid=spartandhp

    How contradictory!

    ”””””A prominent New York lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park to protest against the use of fossil fuels.
    David Buckel, 60, had been well-known for his work on behalf of the LGBT community, as well as with environmental groups.
    A suicide note near the lawyer’s remains said he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolize the damage humans are doing to the Earth.”””””””””’

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @Jeff

    It is correct to say that this matter is being appealed by the TT government? To celebrate is therefore premature?

    Are you saying that Barbados is a signatory to the International Human Rights law?

    @David, yes, the T&T government has declared an intention to appeal the decision. However. a government appeal against a fundamental rights decision always places them in a political quandary. Are they saying by the appeal that the right of the should not exist? And is that not electorally prejudicial? Remember the Belize government had also threatened to appeal the Orozco decision?

    And yes, Barbados is signatory to the UN convention on Human Rights!

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    @ Pachamama at 9:03 AM

    Wuh loss!! What is there to add? These international human rightists seem to have taken on the powers of God. Is this the end days of political,economic and societal sovereignty ? Barbados and some other CARICOM countries have dealt with the issue of buggery by not enforcing the law against consenting adults.It remains on the books to treat cases of non- consensual buggery.
    The law says nothing much about other homosexual acts. They are dealt with culturally. Sexual indecencies are dealt with in the law for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

    Like

  • Thanks Jeff, you no doubt have taken note of the mouthings of government spokesmen (almost wrote parliamentarians) who have been vocal about this matter including the AG- not bout hey they clamour.

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    Too far East is West. We have to guard against the views of minority dominating the majority. That is the worse form of slavery.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Yes, David, I note their fulminations, but it is no longer in their hands. They have ratified Conventions that bind us to certain stances…notably contrary to their publicly expressed views. As Mr Justice Rampersad in T& T has demonstrated, the matter is now in the hands of the courts (sc. CCJ and JCPC).

    Like

  • We have to be careful of so-called Human Rights legislation. In the UK it is more common now for people to sue the press under the Human Rights Act than under libel legislation. The brush is broader.
    I will give a personal example: I was once forced to settle with one person because we published a photograph of his wife’s car showing its registration number. His argument was that as his wife usually took the children to school in the vehicle that it put their safety at risk.
    My opinion was to contest the claim that if he was a law-abiding person he would not have to worry abut his family’s physical safety. The lawyer agreed with me but I was over-ruled by our editorial insurance company. His lawyers, one of the best media law firms in the UK, blind-sided us.
    If anal sex between consenting adults in private is a human right, is it therefore a human right for a person, male or female, to sell their bodies to bidders? Does this ruling confront prostitution in T&T?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    Barbados and some other CARICOM countries have dealt with the issue of buggery by not enforcing the law against consenting adults.It remains on the books to treat cases of non- consensual buggery.

    @ Pachamama, If so, they have chosen an odd way to do it, since the law does not say this either expressly or impliedly…

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    If anal sex between consenting adults in private is a human right, is it therefore a human right for a person, male or female, to sell their bodies to bidders? Does this ruling confront prostitution in T&T?

    @Hal, I sought to argue in my last column ” The Nightwalker and the Honorable Member” that prostitution per se is not illegal, merely its public solicitation and commercialization

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch April 15, 2018 10:20 AM

    So those people trading on the streets are committing and offence, but those operating fro private residences, or meeting clients in hotel rooms on private arrangements are not?
    So, it is not a moral issue, just one of clogging the streets and accosting people not interested in doing business? Is this a division of labour, with the bottom end paying a high price?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @ Hal, correct is right!

    Like

  • an offence

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    @ Jeff At 10 : 20 AM

    What is the difference between prostitution and commercialization? are they not both selling?

    Like

  • @Hal A
    My opinion was to contest the claim that if he was a law-abiding person he would not have to worry abut his family’s physical safety.
    ++++++++++++
    Wow, the Police and many right- wing folks in NA and dare say in Britain voice that same opinion when they stop and frisk Black and poor people on the streets without cause. “If you are a law abiding citizen you don’t have anything to worry about”. The use of “law abiding” is a cover for illegal acts, never thought you would be a party to it, live and learn.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    What is the difference between prostitution and commercialization? are they not both selling?

    @Bernard, I use commercialization to mean turning the “trade” into a business, such as brothel keeping, procurement and living off the earnings of prostitution. The article should still be on this site,

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Hal Austin April 15, 2018 10:16 AM
    “If anal sex between consenting adults in private is a human right, is it therefore a human right for a person, male or female, to sell their bodies to bidders? Does this ruling confront prostitution in T&T?”

    Very good question(s) posed!
    The answer to your first question is: ‘Why not’?
    Wasn’t the sale of black people a legal right of white slave traders, mostly Jewish?
    What an “Amazing Grace” of an eye opener to John Newton!

    Don’t people gamble and drink alcohol under regulated or licensed arrangements?
    Don’t people ingest patented drugs to make Pharma one of the biggest money spinners in the world while the God-made plants and ‘herbs’ like Mary Jane remain, generally, an illegal substance and an outcast unable to compete against the white man controlled business?

    Black people ought to be the last people on God’s green Earth to discriminate against any minority group given what they have experienced under the same laws made by their enslavers.

    How easy they forget what the had to endure less than 70 years ago in order to achieve the basic human entitlements called ‘Civil Rights’.

    Didn’t the white people in America and South Africa (not all) see them as subhuman incapable of managing a society even if their own in a segregated fashion?

    If the argument to support discrimination against the God-made mistake of creating homosexuals (both male and female) can be found in the Bible why not be consistent and ‘legally’ ban women who are menstruating from interacting with ‘others’ as stipulated in the same Bible?

    Why not see homosexual acts among humans as ‘Mother Nature’s built-in redundancy as a form of natural culling to control the population?

    The days of Onan are long past when sperm, wasted in any form, was deemed as good as gold among the family jewels of the species.

    The lives of soldiers, sailors and convicts will always be lonely except for the intimate company of their ‘fellowman’?

    Here is what the same Bible has to say (not this time against homosexual acts among males as considered an abomination in the moral book of Leviticus) but against menstruating women as per the same Solutions Barbados Leviticus 15, 19:33:

    19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening.
    20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
    21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
    22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
    23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it.
    24 If a man has sexual intercourse with her and her blood touches him, her menstrual impurity will be transmitted to him. He will remain unclean for seven days, and any bed on which he lies will be unclean.
    25 “If a woman has a flow of blood for many days that is unrelated to her menstrual period, or if the blood continues beyond the normal period, she is ceremonially unclean. As during her menstrual period, the woman will be unclean as long as the discharge continues.
    26 Any bed she lies on and any object she sits on during that time will be unclean, just as during her normal menstrual period.
    27 If any of you touch these things, you will be ceremonially unclean. You must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening.
    28 “When the woman’s bleeding stops, she must count off seven days. Then she will be ceremonially clean.
    29 On the eighth day she must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons and present them to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle.
    30 The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Through this process, the priest will purify her before the LORD for the ceremonial impurity caused by her bleeding.
    31 “This is how you will guard the people of Israel from ceremonial uncleanness. Otherwise they would die, for their impurity would defile my Tabernacle that stands among them.
    32 These are the instructions for dealing with anyone who has a bodily discharge—a man who is unclean because of an emission of semen
    33 or a woman during her menstrual period. It applies to any man or woman who has a bodily discharge, and to a man who has sexual intercourse with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.”

    Like

  • Yeah…that self immolation by that lawyer yesterday in Prospect Park, Brooklyn to protest fossil fuel use is a strange one, I noted the cases he won as well.

    Like

  • Bernard Codrington

    Words are used very interestingly in Law.” Atheistic”,”Theocracy”, “Supremacy of God”.

    Perhaps we can add “deist’ from Christian theology. The latter differs from” theist” in the above.

    Good mental exercise.

    Why should not the Political Class be confused as well? It makes for interesting governance.

    Like

  • When you have no idea of what you stand for, you can fall for any shiite.
    This bulling thing is the very antithesis of life itself. It goes against the very grain of mother Nature.

    That this has become a rallying point for the powers-that-be – and almost a raison d’être for academics such as Jeff, ….only reaffirms Bushie’s repeated mantra that we are in a dark place- where our world have been taken over by ominous forces in high spiritual places and of intense wickedness.

    Of note – as Pacha points out, is the COMPLETE absence of any meaningful international focus and PRESSURE on political bribery; prevention of warfare; eradication of racism; or even just reduction of overt hatred……

    ….but we ALL must endorse bulling ….. OR ELSE
    .. and the LAW is of course dutifully exercising its mandate to protect this ‘critical’ human right to indulge in shiite mining…. despite runaway murders, robbery, violence, bribery and other sky-rocketing criminal activities…

    Thank you Jeff….this needed to be highlighted at this time.

    Like

  • Sargeant April 15, 2018 10:55 AM

    Am I right in thinking you have misunderstood the two situations. In one, the plaintiff was claiming an infringement of his human rights by publishing the registration number of his wife’s car, he should have to provide proof; in the other, innocent people walking the streets are stopped and searched on the spurious grounds that unless you have something to hide you would not object. Not the same at all. In one there is no human right, in the other your human right is to walk the streets unmolested as per the law in England and Wales.

    Like

  • Thanks Jeff!

    What is sad is the vacuum created by their ‘fulminations’ where one would expect a working media and vibrant NGOs to fill.

    Like

  • Pacha lets get back to the contradictory immolation thing, does that mean you are gonna pull a train of bull elephants to prove buggery isnt a good idea. Look if they pay their taxes are not forcing themselves on others who cares what goes on behind those closed doors. I have been coming to barbados for decades now and I will bet when the doors of a house close there are a lot of women paralyzed with fear of their husbands, maybe you guys should work on that.

    Like

  • To be clear…
    Are you referring to the doors of the gated communities lawson?
    …cause we always see the others being prosecuted in court
    …while the police can’t even get in – to protect those behind the gates.

    Like

  • anywhere this isnt a black white thing is it ? and cut the bs you know as well as i women are scared to talk, why waste time and resources on this stuff.when it can be put to better use

    Like

  • Every now and then (to use a well- worn colloquialism) the issue of Republicanism and its attendant issues raises its head in these parts and I note that the Court responsible for this ruling is based in a “Republic”. The Gov’t of the day is signaling its intention to appeal this ruling to a higher Court based in the country from whence it attained its “Independence”; in effect it is sending its silk attired legal luminaries to a Court in a country that has as its head the same individual whom the “Republic” rejected as its titular head. The “Republic” does not subscribe to the Court established in its territory to address the issues that arise in its area, it has no faith in the legal ability of its sons and daughters or the legal aptitude of the citizens of its neighbouring countries to deliver sound judgement of its most perplexing legal conundrums, indeed this is more startling when one considers that the most prominent finishing schools for lawyers is located in the “Republic”.

    The apron strings are still well and truly connected Republic be damned, Janus can’t hold a candle to these politicians.

    Like

  • I believe the appeal is merely to seek finality at the highest level Appeal Court or Privacy Council, as the government knows this may go all the way to the Privy Council and it is highly unlikely the PC will support the existing law. On another note, isn’t “eating” and “sucking” part of the definition of sodomy and buggery? lmao.

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    “….but we ALL must endorse bulling ….. OR ELSE”

    @Bushie, speak for yourself and do not use the legal decision as an excuse.The judge did not ask any one who is opposed to homosexual acts to indulge in them. He merely enabled those who were already so inclined. Yours is a “Lowdown” Hoad argument. -Once it is decriminalized, everyone will do it-. Nonsense on stilts!

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    On another note, isn’t “eating” and “sucking” part of the definition of sodomy and buggery? lmao.

    @Enuff, the Trinidadian, but curiously not the Barbadian Act, defines buggery thusly-

    buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

    Like

  • @Jeff

    Don’t mean to put you on the spot but how does one describe a situation where the government commits to an international convention but reneges on ratifying in law? Is this unethical, inefficient all the above?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    @David, It is frankly dishonest. No one forces government to ratify a convention and like the ordinary citizen, they should seek to ascertain precisely what they are committing to.The international practice generally requires that on ratification, the state should should pass a law to give effect to the treaty, but this is generally more honored in the breach than the observance.

    One imagines that they ratify sometimes merely to look good!

    Like

  • @ Jeff
    You know full well that we are largely forced to endorse and respect what the ‘Law’ mandates.
    It is not a question of personally adopting the behaviour, but of accepting it as NORMAL, LAWFUL behaviour- as against being UNNATURAL, unlawful, and unacceptable.

    Where such behaviour is unlawful, Bushie fully expects that his doctor would be professionally inclined in a particular way…
    Once you have legitimised it, are you now saying that Bushie has the RIGHT to demand that doc confesses any such inclination… BEFORE asking to see Bushie’s whacker…?

    …or that our favourite pollster ‘fesses-up BEFORE posing certain questions…?

    Don’t pretend that it is no big thing….A society ALWAYS get exactly what that society deserves, and a society is DEFINED by its laws and accepted behaviours – not by its outliers.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Enuff April 15, 2018 1:03 PM
    “I believe the appeal is merely to seek finality at the highest level Appeal Court or Privacy Council, as the government knows this may go all the way to the Privy Council and it is highly unlikely the PC will support the existing law.”

    Isn’t it strangely paradoxical that a ‘law’ grounded in a colonial past has to be sent not to the homegrown CCJ but to an ex-colonial master for certain rejection?

    How can the Privy Council even think about entertaining (except for the easy legal costs) such an appeal when in its own house such a law would be ‘laughed out’ of the lower courts?

    Privately conducted Sex between two consenting adult males in the UK and its Dominions is not an illegal act.

    If it ‘were’ so, many of the same ‘openly-gay’ lawmakers would clearly be deemed ‘closeted’ lawbreakers and instead of being elected and selected to both rooms in the Palace of Westminster would find themselves ‘grassing up’ for some Dutch defence in an open prison for sexual perverts.

    Copycat West Indian Lawmakers aka West Indian politicians are nothing but a bunch of yellow-minded monkeys and, like the fever, still stricken with the moral malaise from a far distant colonial past.

    How about making it mandatory (by law) that all politicians seeking election to office be made to declare the private asse(t)s?

    Would you then have a PM who is a lifelong bachelor in the mould of Teddy Heath a former lover of the Bajan Gold coast?

    How about passing a law to allow for legal access to Euthanasia given the ‘graying’ time bomb about to fall from the demographic skies?

    With a fast aging population riddled with all sorts of cripplingly debilitating diseases caused by the widespread prevalence of NCD’s and contracting economies unable to generate sufficient tax revenues to fund a welfare state why not provide those who want to jump ship with the opportunity to do their Logan’s run when they see fit?

    Like

  • One imagines that they ratify sometimes merely to look good!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Mostly, it is because they have NO IDEA what they are signing….and could care even less.
    Our representatives are generally there for the ‘trip’ – especially the shopping and site-seeing.
    It would take BALLS, and a large degree of intelligence AND effort (research etc) to stand against the albino-centric crowd at such conventions.
    That alone rules out any chance of our standing up for any non-conformist position from people who fund us….(especially the trips…)

    When they get back home and realise that they did shiite, the excuse is always that ‘everyone else also signed’…. and there is no appetite to pass any supporting laws..
    Apart from Dipper, Tom and Owen, we have not had the kind of leaders who had the needed balls….
    …and Owen wasted his testosterone on CSME…. and cussing ‘negrocrats’….

    To cut a long story short, where there is no vision, the people get screwed…..

    Like

  • If this was brought before the courts in Barbados, what would be the outcome?

    I like my fellow Bajans, but I can almost hear the judge beginning his opinion with “I am not a bulla and I am not supporting buller men …

    Like

  • Isn’t the decision about anal sex between consenting adults be they man or woman?

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Bush Tea April 15, 2018 2:48 PM
    “Don’t pretend that it is no big thing….A society ALWAYS get exactly what that society deserves, and a society is DEFINED by its laws and accepted behaviours – not by its outliers.”

    Then there is every ‘right’ to call Barbados a sewer full of brass-bowl black hypocrites of which over 70% are ‘conceived’ through 100% ‘bastardized’ promiscuity and ‘outside fooping’.

    You have just set out an excellent case for the return of your main man Froon and his bull(y)ing goons to office in order to rub more raw shit in your Bajan face.

    At least MAM- who, in your eyes, is ‘Aman’- does not have children outside of wedlock; a sin clearly condemned in your BBE book.

    And Bushie, you are No “outlier”.

    “No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.” Deuteronomy 23:2

    Like

  • @Jeff

    Thanks, but although that is the constitutional definition, it does not negate the accepted definition which was rooted in Christian belief. Of course the likes of Bushie would not want to be called a Sodomite. lol.

    Like

  • @ Miller
    Back to your cave…. please!!
    What makes ‘wedlock’ conform into your definition?
    Who determines that a young couple who conceives a child has contravened some ridiculous law made up by the same type of idiots that came up with the shiite tax? (clueless BBs)

    Perhaps a ‘forbidden union’ was meant to be one between different philosophical genotypes.
    …or perhaps it is between a wise person and an idiot…. (like if Ping Pong were to marry ac !!!)

    What the hell is ‘wedlock’ …but yet another idiotic law that defines our retarded society?
    Are there not societies with completely different concepts of ‘wedlock’?

    @ Enuff
    You can cuss the bushman to your heart’s content…and call him what ever you wish…
    As far as Bushie is concerned, the concept of ‘fit for purpose’ rules.

    Boss..
    If you want to brush your teeth in your toilet, …and it turns you on…. feel free to do so…
    Bushie will use the sink for toothbrushing – and crap in the toilet.

    But Bushie is still awaiting Jeff’s explanation as to why he should accept as ‘normal’, that you may well be brushing your teeth in the toilet at Bushie’s workplace – or even his home – when you visit to drink a beer…
    ….and yuh better bring yuh own beer too – cause Bushie is fairly squeamish …. LOL ha ha ha

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch April 15, 2018 2:47 PM

    How about Britain and other Western European states telling the modern-day black massas of their ex-colonies that there will be NO ‘Reparations’ discussions without the removal of those existing slave laws like the same piece of legislation designed to force the production of many hands for a bygone plantation system instead of the ‘moral’ promoting of wholesome healthy black family life?

    How come no so-called white man was ever convicted for buggery in Barbados? What an ozzy hilly thing indeed!

    It can be argued as a fact that Britain- for the first time- is willing to help bail out the sick and slowly dying economy of her former jewel in the crown colony called Little England.

    But there has to be a bit of quid pro quo. The legislative removal of that archaic law of buggery which can discriminate against their citizens either in civil partnerships or ‘common’ same-sex unions while holidaying in Barbados.

    We don’t want another of their Alan Turing to go missing only to end up in a bull(y)ing position in some prison cell in the tropics.

    You must remember that Barbados does have a reputation right across the globe with its ‘gay’ abandon capital of St. James so proudly marketed by the Tradewinds.

    Like

  • @Miller

    The argument here is that the colonizers left these laws on our books when they gave us Independence and have since removed from their statute books. Why are we holding onto to their laws if we don’t intend to prosecute? Is this some kind of placebo arrangement? A better description is hypocrisy maybe?

    Like

  • Jeff Cumberbatch

    I like my fellow Bajans, but I can almost hear the judge beginning his opinion with “I am not a bulla and I am not supporting buller men

    @TG, Lawyers call this obiter dicta … statements not relevant to the decision, things said ny the way… He then has to deal with the law not his prejudices…

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Bush Tea April 15, 2018 4:09 PM

    So what’s your basis of objecting to bulling and wicking?

    All along we were of the view that basis of your objection was not so much in accordance with Pacha’s guillotine-based mindset but because of some BBE-issued edict called an ‘abomination’ in the book from which you expatiate so liberally.

    Can’t you see that the more “bullers” there are the more women left for you to play with?
    So when the ‘he-she’ men kill the real men the more women would be left for you Bushie boy.

    Why not see homosexuality in mammals as Nature’s built-in population control mechanism like eunuchs and barren women? Can you give a ‘phenotype’ reason why some people are unable to reproduce according to their own kind in keeping with your Big Boss Engineering schematic design?

    Maybe you can get John to explain why there is a high incidence of homosexual activity among dolphins and bonobo chimps to whom you are very, very closely related.

    Like

  • Recently we saw the ‘fall of the city’ sic – Troy. The Trojan war(s). Or more precisely the seize of Troy.

    Somebody called and asked us to have a look.

    As reworked there are many African people depicted, surprisingly

    Nestor, Achilles, many others.

    And while several aspects, as depicted, appear to be consistent with the actual historical record it was clear to us that fundamentally this film was about the furtherance of the homosexual agenda, like most now are.

    Achilles was depicted as the powerful warrior with both male and female ‘sexual’ partners living under the same dwelling, as the centrality of the character.

    We had the Amazonian (female) warriors as well. In all its segment there was a significantly higher than average representation of Black people, Africans, female warriors, with no male leading characters played opposite, in that segment.

    Bottom line. The freaks in Hollywood are insistent that their agenda will win regardless. So their own racist histories are being retold (airbrushed) to impose a vicious agenda while pretending to be race neutral.

    Like

  • “How about Britain and other Western European states telling the modern-day black massas of their ex-colonies that there will be NO ‘Reparations’ discussions without the removal of those existing slave laws like the same piece of legislation designed to force the production of many hands for a bygone plantation system instead of the ‘moral’ promoting of wholesome healthy black family life?”

    you will then see how quickly all the hypocrites fall in line, the pretend buggery laws will quickly disappear, never to be heard of or about again, but the beast in Buckingham palace is way ahead, she will not force the removal of those laws if it means having to pay reparations and of course Western Europe will fall in line, after she is forced off the earth is when that matter may be addressed.

    Like

  • It is correct to say that this matter is being appealed by the TT government? To celebrate is therefore premature?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Where does the highest court of Appeal to which the TT Government can apply actually sit?

    On their A$$es … in Great Britain!

    Wonder what the CCJ would say if faced with such an appeal?

    Like

  • In Antigua a top rank police officer is accused of carrying his nastiness to three junior ranks.Its that type of corruption that need to be removed from positions of influence.These are predators of an unnatural kind and could result in serious criminal offences by those minded to lose control.

    Like

  • @Professor Cumberbatch quoting from Trinidad’s law

    13 (1) A person who commits the offence of buggery is liable on conviction to imprisonment for twenty-five years

    13(2) In this section “buggery” means sexual intercourse per anum by a male person with a male person or by a male person with a female person.

    16 (1) A person who commits an act of serious indecency on or towards another is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years.

    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act of serious indecency committed in private between—

    (a) a husband and his wife;

    (b) a male person and a female person each of whom is sixteen years of age or more, both of whom consent to the commission of the act; or

    @Bush Tea April 15, 2018 11:37 AM “When you have no idea of what you stand for, you can fall for any shiite. This bulling thing is the very antithesis of life itself. It goes against the very grain of mother Nature.”

    But Bushie you will note that under Trinidad’s law a man is permitted to commit acts of serious indecency on his wives or girlfriends, or perhaps on his AND his girlfriends as long as the ladies consent and that such acts committed by opposite sex consenting adults does not bother the state of Trinidad at all.

    So it can’t be a matter of morality.

    And it can’t be because the state of Trinidad believes that the act itself is bad for public health.

    So what is it then?

    Like

  • @Bush Tea April 15, 2018 2:48 PM “are you now saying that Bushie has the RIGHT to demand that doc confesses any such inclination… BEFORE asking to see Bushie’s whacker?”

    You know that women go to heterosexual male gynecologists and obstetricians don’t you? And that furthermore in order for a doctor to examine a woman properly, for example during a PAP smear, or during the delivery of a baby that the woman must be in stirrups and must therefore expose her entire person to the adult male heterosexual male gynecologist/obstetrician.

    So I don’t see any worry with a homosexual or heterosexual man or woman inspecting your whacker.

    It is good for your health.

    Stop being a baby and present the whacker to any doctor who needs to have a look.

    Like

  • I thought women did not have persons to expose …. at least, so the law says!!

    Like

  • … but I agree, go to the doctor and get your check ups!!

    Like

  • … and a digital exam does not mean it is done electronically!!

    Like

  • There is only one doctor I fear … the dentist!!

    Like

  • @ Gabriel
    Trinidad is no model of morality.
    Nor are their laws any guide to common sense or good example.

    This is a place where coup leaders have TWICE done treasonous shiite …and walked away laughing….
    Calypso – YES
    Common sense….. no!!!

    Anyway…
    How does a man do something so unnatural …to someone they purport to ‘love’….
    The act is FAR more understandable as it was done under the Barbados Slave Code to humiliate our foreparents.
    …or out of the kind of selfish desire for warped, personal, selfish, pleasure – that ignores the impact on victims.

    Trust BBs to now fall for the idea (from the perpetrators of hate) that this is now an expression of ‘love’…

    But what does Bushie know …?
    We now have people finding ‘pleasure’ in even more gross and self-destructive practices and fetishes….
    In the present world, any shiite goes….(pun intended) … until the Big Boss pulls stumps…

    Because of brassbowlery, “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
    And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    Can you describe our present world in more accurate terms…?
    Romans 1 says it MUCH better than Bushie ever could…

    Like

  • Sorry – Not Gabriel but Simple Simon above.

    Stop being a baby and present the whacker to any doctor who needs to have a look.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Are you still flaunting that Mock Doc thingy?
    What are you doing tomorrow…?

    Like

  • Talking Loud Saying Nothing

    Off topic,

    Sometime In the early eighties under the callous Margaret Thatcher regime the nationality law was altered. Those citizens from the commonwealth were instructed that they would have to regulate their citizenship in order to give them the legal status to reside legally in the UK born citizens. As you would expect the fees were high and the government made a tidy sum of money.

    The government of the day was explicit in their announcement. You would have had to be hiding under a rock not to have received this message! Sadly, it would appear that many citizens did not heed the government’s request and are now in a legal quagmire concerning their status in the UK.

    The UK, especially the Conservative party have never had any love for those citizens who hailed from the Caribbean; in the same way that home Bajans residing in Barbados have never had much love for the British diaspora.

    The link below shows the High Commission of Barbados discussing this issue:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43782241

    Like

  • Talking Loud Saying Nothing April 16, 2018 10:36 AM

    The 1971 Immigration Act.

    Like

  • UK MPs being questioned in parliament about the Windrush cockup, it’s only pretensive MPs in Barbados believe they dont have to answer their citizens and are not accountable, with their fraudulent self importance.

    Like

  • The accounting has started, UK will not be able to escape this.

    Like

  • We don’t get many real black men of Caribbean heritage standing up and represent the rights of or expose the cruel and inhumane mistreatment their own black people are subjected to by predictably evil British or North American minds and hands, they would quicker join with their oppressors and slit your throat than to stand up as real men.

    David Lammy is setting an example for Black men who are not yet conscious to follow, those who are already real men who stand up as real men, will get the strength to continue the trend.

    Kudos to David Lammy.

    Like

  • @Jeff

    The recent spectacle of the Chief Electoral Officer standing down in the matter brought by a few lawyers regarding the obstructing of Caricom nationals being allowed to vote is worthy of a scholarly comment? An article perhaps?

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s