Human Rights or Vindictiveness? Time to Decide A Way Forward!

Note: This is from my weekly column in The Gleaner. I am not sure why it wasn't available online yesterday, so I have decided to upload it here. 

Human rights advocacy is too often laden with vindictiveness--a terrible trait for a movement founded on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and dignity to possess. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d), “Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe” (my emphasis).  

I understand many of us have been wronged and our impassioned advocacy might be fueled by such experiences but it is pivotal that as advocates we learn to promote our causes without the need to (always?) punish others for dissenting views (and/or even actions). Human rights “are about being treated fairly, [and] treating others fairly”. We must therefore appreciate that fairness and punishment are not synonymous and that they do not have a symbiotic relationship in any way.

As a human rights advocate, I am concerned about the seeming obsession with sanctions and punishment among some of my colleagues worldwide. It is an attitude we must rid ourselves of, as it can be inimical to the relationships we build with key opinion leaders and allies and further retard the progress we dedicate our lives facilitating. I am in no way positing that people should not be held accountable for their undesirable behaviours and practices, but reminding us all that change is not engendered through labeling and punishment. Education is an important and far more effective tool in this process of advancing the rights of all people.  

The outcry by some human rights advocates (I am assuming they all are) to Sizzla Kolanji’s Grammy Nomination in the Best Reggae Album Category is an excellent example. There is no secret “the wildly prolific Sizzla [who] performs melodic, rootsy dancehall with singalong hooks and creative lyricism” (Erin McLeod, 2014) has a particular conviction about homosexuality. He has produced and performed enough songs to apprise us that he ‘denounces’ gays and lesbians. But can someone please inform me how revoking his nomination will help to change his perspective on gays and lesbians? Isn’t the probability that he is more likely to be harsher in his criticism of homosexuals greater than him recognising their inherent rights and dignity? Or is it that our interventions are limited to actions of punishments like cancelling his vsas and shows and nothing else?

I am not saying countries that choose to revoke his visa or promoters who cancel his performances as a demonstration that they eschew violence or degrading treatment of anyone shouldn’t do so. But Sizzla, whose real name is Miguel Collins, began his career in 1995, and has felt the blow of the so called “powerful gay lobby” so many times and has been relentless about his stance. And, despite having over seventy albums, is only just now being nominated for an award. So, although he and his team are elated about this recognition, do we honestly believe he will (re)think about his pronouncement about lesbians and gays? I highly doubt it.

Other nominees in this category are Beres Hammond, Sly and Robbie, Ziggy Marley and Snoop Lion. The nominations committee, however it is comprised, has clearly put much thought in selecting this year’s nominees. The reviews I have read about ‘The Messiah’--the album that earned him the nomination--have been quite good. I have not however, listened to the album. Sizzla’s repertoire is vocally strong as he “challenge[s] listeners with his beliefs and politics” (All Music) on several issues such as babylon, imperialism and homosexuality but the majority of his songs do not chastise and encourage the castigation and ostracisation of LGBT people. It would be good if he changes his position.

We must recognise that progress in human rights, even when there were riots and uprisings, was largely successful because of a dedication to active engagement with opponents, bigots (or whatever we want to refer to them as), not punishment. Are we going to go after LGBT people who express racist views, endorse slavery or say disparaging things about sex workers and people living with HIV or with disabilities since punishment is the only way to encourage respect?

I'm not sure where we learnt or got the idea that punishment is a “best practice” to gain recognition and status for minority groups. The world is a much different place now than when we punished South Africa for apartheid. And even then there was lots of engagement with leaders to see to the end of such a repressive regime.

As advocates we have a responsibility to the people and groups we represent and we must, as best as possible, do so in the absence of anger and bitterness but with love and respect--the very thing we seek to encourage.

Finally, I understand the critical role of our friends--government, multilateral agencies, NGOs, etc--in developed countries play but we must find better ways of engaging them. They don't always need to sign petitions and send damning releases to and about our government's action to show solidarity, for example. There are many ways to show such support. There is no blueprint to do this but we must encourage them to respect and encourage our agency as advocates on the ground as well. Otherwise, their role and place in a global human rights movement can do more harm than good.

I put it to you that the people behind the 56th Annual Grammy Awards could have been engaged in a much better way than asking them to rescind Sizzla Kolanji’s nomination.

Public Defender's Irrelevance

The freedom of religion is seemingly the most essential right in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom. Nothing else matters in Jamaica as long as Christians enjoy their freedom of religion to the dismay of other faiths and non-believers. What other explanation could there be for the Public Defender who is mandated to protect and enforce the rights of Jamaicans seeking a legal opinion and possible injunction on the prohibition of preaching on buses?

The last few weeks have been a gift for secularism in Jamaica. We now know that there are about four hundred thousand Jamaicans who are non-religious and about the same who have separated themselves from traditional churches. To top it off, JUTC responding to the outrage of its passengers --- Christians and non-Christians alike, announced a ban on bus preaching. According to the police, persons found guilty can be charged for disorderly conduct. 

I had no doubt this would incite the rage of many Christians and persons who are too afraid to challenge the status quo and privileged offered to this religious group. However, I never imagine certain sects, such as the Office of the Public Defender, would take onus for ensuring Christians can do whatever they please. Would Earl Witter, the Public Defender, do the same for Hindus, Muslims, Jewish and Rastafarians? I highly doubt it.

It is important to note the Public Defender’s admission that his office is severely under resourced. Notwithstanding, he has announced with timelines that he intends to seek legal opinion and a possible injunction to protect the “rights” of the Christian majority. Is this the same person who weeks ago refused to even make a comment about a long overdue Tivoli Incursion report relating to the alleged extrajudicial killings of more than 70 persons? He still hasn't provided us with a date for the report yet there is a clear strategy to treat with the issue of bus preaching. This is preposterous!

The Public Defender is irrelevant. His statement to the media over the weekend and press conference yesterday is evidence of the disregard for the lives of those Jamaicans who lost their life in May 2010 during the Tivoli Incursion.

(Allegations) of extrajudicial killings is a big issue in Jamaica. We rank among the highest in the world. A year ago, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern 'at reports of excessive use of force by law enforcement personnel, particularly during the State of Emergency between May and July 2010 where 73 civilians were killed at the hands of law enforcement personnel.’ The Committee had also requested that Jamaica report in November of this year, what steps have been taken to ‘monitor allegations of extrajudicial killings and ensure that all such allegations are investigated in a prompt and effective manner with a view to eradicating such crimes, bringing perpetrators to justice and hence fighting impunity, and providing effective remedies to victims.’ One would imagine that the Public Defender's Report in the Tivoli Incursion is crucial to this process, especially as it relates to truth and reconciliation for families, loved ones and friends of those who were killed.

Whether or not those who died were in fact criminals is of no consequence. Desmond Tutu, a South African Anglican Priest, who served on the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, advises that the past has ‘an uncanny capacity to return to haunt us [because] an unexamined and unacknowledged past finds all kinds of skeletons emerging from all sorts of cupboards to bedevil the present.’ I can only imagine the anguish that lingers in the hearts and minds of so many persons in Tivoli Gardens.

We have committed similar offences and ignored them throughout our history. Vybz Kartel profoundly made reference to our treatment of Rastafarians over the years in his book The Voice of the Jamaican Ghetto. They were ridiculed and punished. The police destroyed Pinnacle (one of their very first dwelling) and ‘years later they were slaughtered in the Coral Gardens Massacre.’ We cannot afford to repeat our history. The next fifty years of Jamaica should be about mutual respect, truth and justice for all Jamaicans. This is just as important as the economy.

Truth, Tutu said, ‘could be such a potential healer […] Forgiveness is never cheap, never easy, but that it is possible, and that ultimately real reconciliation can happen only on the basis of truth.’ Until the people of Tivoli and the nation has some knowledge about what happened we will never be able to have confidence in our already damaged security and justice system. We made a promise and we ought to do what is right.

If the Public Defender cannot understand and appreciate his role in this regard and subsequently demonstrate this, then I am uncertain of his purpose. Perhaps it is about time we call for his resignation or removal (as difficult as the process may be) if we do not get the report by end of year.

One CONDOM Please...

Jamaica must be one of the few places in the modern-progressive world with such high social stigma that hinder the realisation of a HIV prevention revolution.

There is no doubt, that we have made significant strides as a country, in educating the population about sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. We are on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 6 – to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS by 2015. We are becoming more accepting and appreciative of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). So progressive is our country, that the Ministry of Health and civil society partners has several HIV intervention and outreach programmes that target sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM)—two populations that are criminalised. There are even interventions for persons with visual and hearing impairment.

However, despite these progresses, there are still several barriers to ensuring that persons, particularly adolescent and youth are able to safeguard and protect their sexual and reproductive health. In the last three weeks one of the main concerns that have been featured in a number of meetings (I have attended) with outreach workers, government representatives, activists and different sectors of the population is CONDOM ACCESSIBILITY.

Condoms are important in preventing the spread of HIV. This is evident in the number of advertisements on local television that promotes the use of condoms and how to use them correctly. They also help to prevent pregnancy. So important are they that we now have several flavours; and to accommodate our “kinkiness” they can even glow in the dark. Nonetheless, a number of persons undergo a significant level of discomfort when purchasing condoms.

In Jamaica, condoms are displayed behind the cashier in a store or pharmacy. Everyone must see and hear that you asked the cashier to hand you a pack of condoms. Now this wouldn’t be so bad if sex didn’t raise so many eyebrows, especially when it comes to young people. To make this worse, you pray that the cashier hears and does not announce which brand and what flavour you want when you whisper your request.

Can someone explain to me, why this is considered the most appropriate way to sell condoms in a society where sex is still a taboo? Do we even consider the problems MSM, especially the “effeminate” ones face when they purchase condoms? And worst if they add lubricant to the shopping list? What about sex workers who already face such high social stigma when they have to buy condoms?

No one wants to be the pharmacy or community gossip. I know of several persons who say they would never purchase a condom in Jamaica. Some of them travel and make use of the openness abroad to stack up their supplies. God forbids if the supply goes short before the next trip.

Certainly there must be a better way to make condoms accessible! We could make begin by installing more condom machines in the appropriate and needed areas. We must revisit the policy (or perhaps it is just a wholesale idea) on how condoms are sold in stores and pharmacies. Additionally, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who traditionally are more open and accepting than the wider society, can sell condoms and lubricants. I am sure their meagre budgets could do with the profit from the sale of condoms.

This blog was written for Advocate for Youth's Amplify. The original post can be found here