The Bible is not our Constitution

Javed Jaghai, Guest Columnist

It is well-known that Christian advocacy groups like the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) are proponents of discrimination and social exclusion, but it is time we discuss their efforts to undermine the role of the judiciary in a functional democracy.

A few years ago, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, a powerful advocacy organisation to which the current solicitor general is affiliated, lobbied for modifications to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms to ensure that gay citizens would never be able to appeal to it for protections.

Despite the fact that Jamaican culture is notorious for sanctioning (psychological and physical) violence against homosexuals who are often displaced from their homes, dismissed from their jobs and subjected to harassment, sexual orientation was not included in the new charter as grounds for protection from discrimination.

In addition, an indefinite savings law clause was put in place to ensure that no gay citizen could ever argue that some provisions in the Offences Against the Person Act are inconsistent with their constitutional rights to equality before the law and to respect for, and protection of, private and family life and privacy of the home.

While the legislature is elected by majority vote, the judiciary does not - should not - operate by majority fiat. In Gordon House, it appears that social policies are proposed and laws drafted to appease the sentiments of the vocal religious majority. It is for this reason that the protections afforded by the Jamaican Constitution offer the best course of redress for disenfranchised groups that suffer from institutionalised prejudice and discrimination.

We cannot repeal the entrenched culture of intolerance, but according to the Constitution, "The State has an obligation to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms" (Section 13, 1a).

Supreme Court justices are, therefore, aware that Chapter III of the Constitution mandates that "all persons in Jamaica are entitled to preserve for themselves and future generations the fundamental rights and freedoms to which they are entitled by virtue of their inherent dignity as persons and as citizens of a free and democratic society" (Section 13, 1b).

refuse to accept precept

Anti-gay Christians like Dr Wayne West, the director of the JCHS, refuse to accept this constitutional precept, because it posits that even gay Jamaicans are citizens, are equals, and are not merely sinners to be systematically condemned for their supposed degeneracy.

In their court orders to be joined as an interested party to oppose the domestic challenge to the discriminatory parts of the anti-buggery law, the JCHS states that recognising the constitutional rights of gay citizens may result in future violations of the rights of others. I have never heard a more ridiculous justification for retaining a law that is likely to be found to violate constitutional principles.

If there comes a time when any Jamaican citizen feels his or her rights under the charter are being violated - as I feel mine now are - I will personally encourage them to utilise the same channels for redress that I now seek to use to challenge the constitutionality of the savings-law clause that protects from judicial scrutiny the laws which criminalise consensual intimacy between men in private.

Unfortunately, anti-gay Christians fear that Supreme Court justices may one day determine that the Constitution cannot be used to justify discrimination against stigmatised groups. In other words, they fear that our maturing democracy may one day reject Christian hegemony and decide that even ordained prejudice can be found to be unconstitutional and unjust.

trampling democracy

In order to maintain their grip on the conscience of Jamaican people and withhold justice from gay citizens, they are willing to trample on the democratic process to convince the public that I am hijacking the Constitution when I know I am entitled to the freedoms outlined in the charter.

While the tentacles of the Church and its dominionist leaders have already invaded every possible institution in this country - including the Government - I urge those who recognise the barefaced assault on democratic principles to speak out against church groups that are under the illusion that the Bible is our constitution.

I have a right to challenge the buggery law in its current iteration. I am not going behind anyone's back in exercising my right to redress as a Jamaican citizen.

While those of us who are Christians affirm faith in God, let us also build trust in the institutions created to uphold the rights of every Jamaican. Otherwise, we may as well admit that our nation operates like a theocracy.

Javed Jaghai, claimant in the upcoming Supreme Court challenge to the anti-buggery law, is a Lombard Public Service Fellow from Dartmouth College and an anti-oppression activist. Email feedback tocolumns@gleanerjm.com and sandevaj@gmail.com.