Gordon Robinson, Contributor

Robinson

When, oh, when, are our so-called leaders of the Church going to take their collective head from where it is currently buried deep in the Old Testament's jawbone of an ass (no pun intended) and tune in to the teachings of Jesus? The short answer to that question is probably "never" because Jesus' message of love to all men (and women) is not sufficiently frightening to suit the purpose of the Christian church which is to wield religious power over its members; fill the elaborate concrete structures on days of worship; and, most importantly, fill the plate when it is passed.

This is really not rocket science. This is not an issue of who the prime minister may or may not appoint to his Cabinet (although that is an issue that might arise subsequently). The issue is one of fundamental human rights (including the right of non-discrimination) and in whom are these rights vested. And, in that, the fundamental question that we are all avoiding is "Are homosexuals human?" If the answer to that question is "no" then by all means continue to deny persons the right to employment; to safe passage through life; to self expression; and the right to engage in private sexual relations, rights which we permit to all other humans. If, however uncomfortable it might be to some, the answer to the question is "yes", then homosexuals must be entitled to every single right that is afforded to all other humans, including the right to private sexual expression that does not assault another's right to refuse sexual contact.

Human rights

Human rights are rights to which ALL humans are entitled not just those who think as we do. And there is more to the acknowledgement of an entitlement to human rights than to concede, grudgingly, that persons should not be the subjects of mob violence. And our prime minister, given a glorious opportunity on foreign soil to establish himself as a leader of men, chose instead the role of follower. And he chose the very worst base impulse of his nation's people to follow our proclivity to claim holier-than-thou status over those among us who dare to be different. And he made that sad choice, to what glorious end? So that his party might have a chance to win the next election which might well be upon us sooner than later.

If pressed, I have no doubt that our prime minister will say that he is but a representative of the people and has no choice but to represent their views. Any other prime minister might get away with that particular piece of mealy-mouthed double-speak, but not this one. This one is too bright; too well-informed; too well-versed in the principles of governance (probably the very best we have ever had in Parliament in this regard); too outspoken on the tenets of separation of powers to get away with that. Jamaica's prime minister is not a people's representative. He (or she) is the leader of the country's executive, selected to that post by the people's representatives as being the person most capable of commanding the support of those representatives and appointed to the post by the governor general. We do not (yet) elect prime ministers in this country (ask Mrs Simpson-Miller if you don't believe me). Prime Ministers must lead, not follow like abject little sheep who need to be shown the way home. The representative that this prime minister might be speaking about (were he to try to evade his responsibilities with this spurious argument) would be the member of parliament for West Kingston - not the prime minister. The MP for West Kingston was not interviewed by the BBC, who has no interest whatsoever in that constituency save insofar as it may not contribute to the nation's overall crime rate.

And, some of the arrant nonsense that our prime minister forced himself to speak in order to position the JLP to win the election was absolutely amazing. I am certain that the Bruce Golding that Jamaica has come to know is privately cringing when he plays back the tape of that interview. For example, he actually pleaded the irrelevant defence of Jamaica's sovereign right to set its own values and stoutly re-issued the empty threat not to allow foreign lobby groups to "impose" their "values" on Jamaica. Really? But, in the 1960s and 1970s, when Jamaica led the world in trying to impose our values regarding racism and apartheid on the sovereign government of South Africa, that was OK? And when the South African government eventually crumbled under the weight of the imposition of "foreign values" from so many quarters as well as the excellent internal struggles of the African National Congress, did we not celebrate?

financial nature

Why? Was that because black people are "humans" entitled to all the same rights of other humans despite the South African government's inability to understand that? And are blacks "human" but homosexuals not "humans"? And I suppose, from Jamaica's perspective, it's fair enough for foreign lobby groups to impose their values on us, if those values are of a financial nature and the groups named the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund?

We, in particular our primitive church leaders, need to start treating all of us as God's children and stop seeking ancient barriers to acceptance for some. The Old Testament treats homosexuals and adulterers alike, except that adulterers were stoned to death. Is adultery still a crime in Jamaica? Does the prime minister have any adulterers in his Cabinet? Does he hope, one day, live in a country where adulterers can have the same human rights as the rest of us and be a part of a Cabinet, even his? If he can accept adulterers, on what basis, scriptural or otherwise, does he scorn homosexuals? Personally, I prefer to take Jesus at his word when he separated the blessed nations from the cursed and said "Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." [Matt 25: 31-45, at v 40].

I feel sure the prime minister is doing homosexuals a favour by not appointing an openly homosexual minister in Jamaica as it is today. But a prime minister must lead by example. And, in publicly excluding homosexuals from his Cabinet, is he not encouraging us to exclude them from our workplaces as well? And social clubs? And churches?

Of itself, backward thinking is not a crime, nor is our prime minister alone in treading that popular road. The crime is to persist in backwardness even when enlightenment presents itself to you close up and personal; live and direct.

South Africa was able to change in those circumstance. So, the real issue must be, when are we going to begin the change? And, if not the prime minister, who will lead the way?

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law.