SEVERAL editorials ago, we cautioned that the way the gay community has been conducting its campaign to gain acceptance would result in serious resistance from the Jamaican populace. That predicted pushback is beginning, and it’s not only by the church.
The anguished response to the introduction of material deemed to be age-inappropriate by Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) into six private homes for children is the latest indication of that resistance.
No one will successfully accuse us of being anti-gay in this space. We stand firmly against the beating of homosexuals and for greater tolerance of gays and lesbians as Jamaicans with rights similar to the rest of us. If someone chooses to practise that lifestyle, it is their business, if they are not trying to force it on anyone else, including children.
As late as Thursday, May 22, 2014, we noted: “…But we admit to growing unease that the gay community is not as tolerant as they want others to be of them.”
It is our view that, over the years, Jamaicans have been growing in patience and tolerance, generally leaving homosexuals to do what they wish to do in private. But taking their cue from the United States, apparently, Jamaican gays have been adopting a more aggressive stance in demanding to be recognised as equal to heterosexuals. One gets the impression that, in the US, heterosexuals don’t even have the right to say they disagree with the gay lifestyle, without attracting some form of punishment.
Not satisfied with blocking entertainers who have been accused of producing “hate material” advocating violence against gays from making money in some countries overseas, the community’s leadership has told outright lies against the Jamaican nation, by consistently portraying gay-on-gay violence as evidence of “homophobia” and abuse of gays. This has assisted in gaining sympathy from fellow gays overseas and, in some cases, asylum and funding. But Jamaicans have been quietly seething.
With strong funding from their American counterparts, the gay leadership has also infiltrated several organisations, using harmless0sounding words like “human rights”; “marginalised youth”; “vulnerable community”; “responsible sexuality,” etc. The most obvious takeover, in this regard, is the regional programme to reduce HIV/AIDS, the disease known to afflict homosexuals especially.
This is what led to the firing of Professor Brendan Bain as director of the Regional Co-ordinating Unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Network by the University of the West Indies. Dr Bain has taken that matter before the courts and we await its outcome before making further comments.
However, it’s one thing to get Dr Bain fired, but taking sexual grooming to a home for children is a horse of a different colour entirely. No excuse that contracts were signed with the homes can stand. The agency responsible for administering the home should have been informed, and so too the portfolio ministry.
Moreover, JFJ should have learnt from the stance taken by the education ministry when similar type material ended up in textbooks and was banned.