The LGBT community of Trinidad and Tobago
is forcing the nation to think deeply about fundamental issues of human rights,
the constitutionality of certain laws and the separation of church and State. The
community is presently asking for one thing – equality under the law.
Unfortunately, the debate has been muddled by the media and politicians in the
public sphere so much that the grassroots see a debate about same-sex marriage
and are up in arms about such a drastic request. Same-sex marriage is not yet a
request of the community because it requires other fundamental changes to
legislation that dehumanizes the LGBT community.
The first piece of legislation that affects
the community is the Immigration Act of 1969 that lists homosexuals in its
nomenclature of the “prohibited class” of persons next to known criminals and
“persons who are likely to become charges on public funds.”[i]
Next on the list is the Domestic Violence Act of 1999 that offers protection to
cohabitating adults, defining a cohabitant as “a person who has lived with or
is living with a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife although not
legally married to that person.”[ii] And
the one that is all over the media today is the Equal Opportunities Act of 2000
whose intention is to protect persons from being discriminated against in a
variety of situations for varying reasons. Discrimination against a person for
their sexual orientation, however, is not only excluded but it explicitly
states that discrimination on the basis of sex “does not include sexual
preference or orientation.”[iii]
This is where Trinidad and Tobago is:
legislation that puts homosexuals on the same level as violent criminals and
persons carrying infectious diseases, barring them entry into the country;
failing to legally protect a homosexual victim of domestic violence if they are
in a cohabitating relationship with a person of the same sex; granting legal permission
for persons to discriminate against you if you are homosexual under the very
Act that is supposed to prevent the same - a travesty of a law.
Now, it is common for legislation to lag
behind changes in sociocultural attitudes. I say this because while the law is
so explicitly harsh towards homosexuals, a recent study done by Caribbean
Development Research Services Inc (CADRES) revealed that 56% of the population
were either “accepting” or “tolerant” of gays.[iv]
The study also found that women and young people were more likely to be
tolerant than others. At the same time, CADRES said that there seemed to be a general
misunderstanding regarding whether homosexuality was a choice or not. This
general confusion, if cleared up, could make the 56% a bulkier number.
Under local pressure from representative
groups like CAISO and internationally from the likes of Kaleidescope, Prime
Minister Kamla Persard Bissessar promised Lance Price, Director of
Kaleidescope, to give “due consideration” to these issues.[v]
The LGBT community held their breaths in hope for five months that change would
come only to have their hopes betrayed by the Minister of Gender, Youth and
Child Development, Marlene Coudray. Coudray made herself out to seem like a
puppet of the Interreligious Organisation when she said that “gay rights” were
not included in the nation’s gender policy because the IRO would not have it.
“It’s not up to me,” she said in an attempt to wash her hands of any
responsibility.[vi]
In a letter to the Express editor I argued
that the IRO should not have the political clout that they claim to have and
are allowed to have by the government.[vii]
The IRO uses a “majority rule” argument to justify their power but, as I
highlighted in the article, this so-called majority is only a nominal one.
According to the Catholic Church’s (the most vocal member of the IRO) own
research, 17% of nominal Catholics attend Mass on Sundays, the bare minimum
requirement of the faith whose failure is punishable by eternal hell-fire. I
speculated based on studies done in Archdioceses around the world that not all
Catholics agree with all Church doctrines. Within the 17% are a number of persons
who not only disagree with the Church on this particular issue, but are also members
of the LGBT community. For the Church – and by extension, the IRO – to use
these numbers to bolster their influence is shameful and the government has to
answer to the people as to why this group is given so much air-time regarding
homosexuality.
Trinidad and Tobago has a history of
deflecting certain concerns to the religious community because no other group
has offered itself in an approachable way to give insight. In 2012, CNC3 ran a
LGBT series that brought the issue to the public while they sat at home
watching the news. A bold and progressive move, I thought. Then, I watched the
series. The LGBT community was given a famously flambouyant representative in Saucy Pow, who spoke of a history of child
molestation and a current occupation as a male prostitute who serviced many
men, some of them police officers.[viii]
Saucy Pow is a member of the
community, but he is by no means a representative of the cross section of the
community that is as rich in diversity as the nation itself. The feature only
further perpetuated the notion that members of the LGBT community only had
these tendencies because of past trauma – a dangerous untruth used by
pseudo-psychologists who would rather the World Health Organisation re-install
homosexuality on its list of mental illnesses.
Leela Ramdeen |
Trinidad and Tobago prides itself on its
religious tolerance in the midst of its great ethnic diversity. The IRO is a
symbol of this “religious tolerance” but this tolerance has always amused me.
In the video alluded to above, we see three persons of different faiths banding
together against a common enemy, all justifying their stance using differing theological
arguments. What has the LGBT community done to warrant such attention by the
religious?
As stated before, they had the audacity to
ask to be treated as human beings. This point has been continuously overlooked
and it is an outright disrespect to the LGBT community. Is it that the IRO agrees that homosexuals should not be allowed into
Trinidad and Tobago? Does the IRO think that homosexuals should not be legally
protected against domestic violence? Does Leela Ramdeen believe that
homosexuals should be discriminated against because of their homosexuality?
The force with which the IRO has responded to the debate would imply that they answer
these questions in the affirmative. However, if asked directly, I doubt they
would do the same. The media needs to do a better job in fine-tuning the debate
to these fundamental issues.
What people are really afraid of is the
phantom of gay marriage that is haunting America and spreading across Europe. Leela
Ramdeen said it eloquently in a symposium in April:
“The
Catholic Church said...once you change, or enlarge gender, the consequences of such a new definition would be
monumental, as it could change the meaning of thousands of UN documents and all our laws. Activists could then use this
expanded definition in their respective
countries to strike down laws governing such things as heterosexual marriage and anything that would seem to discriminate
against them.”[x]
No argument was given to show why the
definition of gender was intrinsically wrong. We were only told, like the
animals in Animal Farm, that if we accept this definition, we would go down a
“slippery slope.” Interestingly enough, “slippery slope” is its own logical
fallacy. One cannot make a statement true by alluding to possible future demise
especially when gay marriage is nothing to be feared.
Rev. Shelly Ann Tenia |
The religious hold great influence on this matter but it would be unjust of me to not acknowledge those religious who are more compassionate. CNC3 came under attack at the end of their series from the LGBT community for not giving voice to these said persons. CNC3 relented and aired a follow-up segment with Anglican Rev. Shelly Ann Tenia who emphasised her duty as a minister, acknowledging the humanness of persons in the community. She said “there are faithful Christians who are [homosexual] and understand themselves in that way.” It is beautiful that she would call them “faithful Christians” and perhaps her own unconventional role as a female minister allows her to be a more progressive thinker. Catholic cleric Fr. Harvey was also aired and said something I hope the IRO and all the people of Trinidad and Tobago could take note of: “They have challenged us a lot about what does love mean.”[xi]
Father Harvey |
[i]Immigration Act 1969 http://www.oas.org/dil/Immigration_Act_Trinidad_and_Tobago.pdf
[ii] Domestic Violence Act 1999 http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/alphabetical_list/lawspdfs/45.56.pdf
[iii] Equal Opportunity Act 2000 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/womenrights/trinidad.women.00.pdf
[iv] CADRES report on gay tolerance and acceptance http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-05-16/gays-tolerated-tt-says-survey
[v] Prime Minister Kamla Persard Bissessar’s promise to Lance Price http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-12-17/pm-promises-rights-gays-gender-policy
[vi] Marlene Coudray : Gay rights out of gender policy http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-05-18/coudray-gay-rights-out-proposed-gender-policy
[vii] Letter to the Editor. A case of religious gerrymandering https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151748096714050&set=a.127924724049.130222.127101449049&type=1&theater
[viii] CNC3 InDepth report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDB6HLCJwbQ
[ix] CNC3 InDepth report. Religious views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDB6HLCJwbQ
[x] On definition of gender http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,176770.html
[xi] CNC3 InDepth report. Pro-gay religious views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNt1zKS1A4I
No comments:
Post a Comment