The ongoing sexual offences review has come to a juncture of the definition of rape but not for the first time before under previous government administrations. The hot button issue is how to carefully define what is rape as for many years men are not covered under rape, minors are also not covered in terms of buggery committed on them by an adult where there is obviously no consent involved on the minor’s part by the mere fact it involves a minor. For years lobbyists have been making this point but roadblocks such as a strategy change from asking for a full repeal of buggery to an amendment (the much more sensible option from the start) have only sought to delay and skew the thrust, this despite the savings law clause being in effect prior to the replacing of section three of the constitution with the charter of rights. The draft of that charter in 1999 up to about 2002 or so had a discrimination protection clause related to sexual orientation protection feature but was vigorously fought by people such as Espeut, Shirley Richards and the two times convicted Reverend Al Miller. So folks such as Espeut are still stuck in the old language land of repeal instead of amendment which to me is middle ground in all this. Despite we have a middle ground buttressed by consent considerations involving adults while offering better protection for minors outside of a carnal abuse and child care and protection acts religious crack pots who make the rest of the church look bad still vehemently resist.
He tried to sound concerned about the ongoing clerical abuse matter in a radio interview on Newstalk 93FM but his tone sounded more discomforted in the interview than really concerned as if he had to discuss the matter as he was called upon to do so or he tried to pass it off as if it was another denomination’s problem and not his, thankfully the hosts of the show brought him back to reality as they suggested it is the catholic church that seems to have set the benchmark for said abuse. This is bearing in mind the denial of said abuse in Jamaica is ongoing by the establishment of the church here in the form of the local Bishop. But cover ups are usually well preserved by well cloaked devices and people often wrapped in piety in this case as God’s representatives on earth do not engage in such things.
Espeut claims among other things that:
Espeut among other things said:
“The penalties for the different offence are widely different; the solution would be make the penalties more equal without changing the definition (rape) ........ because you see if we change the definition of rape to include anal penetration but you see rape is normally accepted with consent but without consent that’s the crime.
So if you make anal sex rape then what you’re suggesting is that is possible to have anal sex/buggery with consent and therefore the people who are against this are quite correct, that to redefine rape to include anal sex does in fact by definition anal sex with consent legal and that is the source of the problem.
It seems to me that the solution would be make the penalties for all of these things equivalent and then we won’t have a problem.”
“The LGBT people are looking for an opportunity to legalise buggery and to call rape to include anal sex into rape will provide that opportunity and therefore people are not going to go for it.........”
This is despite there is also no concept of rape in the offences against the persons act, and the over arching considerations of personal choice via consent, a matter to be determined by the very parties involved but folks like Espeut want to continue to police our choices and indeed bodies if he could more as which hole we should plug. It is pitiful this is the backwardness we still have to contend with in the twenty first century. He also claims that the implied marginalization of boys, girls in some context and women too in others the only way to solve that is to increase the punishment, so punish away because I am pure thinking comes through yet again. Higher penalties for supposed sexual sins will deal with the marginalization in his eyes.
Peace & tolerance
and the lunacy as well in: Reverend Espeut, West says “Homophobia” was invented to abuse Christians as hate speech and War of words between pro & anti gay activists on HIV matters .......... what hypocrisy is this? (prior to the Professor Bain conflict of interest explosion)