STAY CALM

DAYS after a pastor warned that anarchy could take place after last week’s High Court ruling that the buggery law was unconstitutional, President Paula-Mae Weekes yesterday called for calm as she lamented “escalating tensions” caused by debate on the court’s ruling.

In a release, she urged people not to incite victimisation, bigotry and violence over the issue, but instead to become properly informed of the facts and express themselves civilly. She explained at length exactly which sexual acts are at present outlawed. Gay lobby CAISO yesterday welcomed Weekes’ call and hoped other top officials would follow her lead.

Last Thursday, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled that the country’s ban on buggery under the Sexual Offences Act was unconstitutional, in a case brought by gay-rights activist Jason Jones, which the State will appeal with further prospects of adjudication by the Privy Council and a possible repeal of the legislation by Parliament.

Meanwhile, Pastor Victor Gill had claimed any repeal of this legislation could create social unrest and anarchy. Gay-rights activists rejected this as hate speech, amid reports that at least three young men were evicted from their homes for participating in an LGBT rally outside the Hall of Justice after Rampersad’s ruling.

Weekes commented, “It is with growing concern that I have been following in the media, both traditional and social, the escalating tensions surrounding Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act and the recent judgement of our Court on the constitutionality of those provisions.

“I urge those participating in the debate to bear in mind that while all of us are entitled to hold and express robustly our point of view, we must be careful not to damage the national psyche by inadvertently inciting victimisation, bigotry and violence.” She implored citizens, especially those in a position to influence others, to inform themselves fully on the law and the facts before making public utterances.

“I take this opportunity to remind commentators of the request I made in my inauguration address that those with a platform from which to disseminate their views, or those of others, report responsibly and comment civilly on the facts.”

Weekes, a former Justice of Appeal, cited the relevant sections of Sexual Offences Act and later explained them, “In layman’s terms, it is against the law under Section 13 to have anal intercourse whether man with man or man with woman, even where the parties are consenting adults acting in private.

“It is also unlawful by virtue of Section 16 for there to be the exciting or satisfying of sexual desire by engaging in acts short of sexual intercourse but which involve the use of genital organs e.g. oral sex between consenting adult males as well as between consenting adult females.

“It is these specific prohibitions that engaged the attention of the court. The arguments in the case did not touch and concern non-consensual sexual acts or sexual acts involving adults with children.” Weekes also quoted the Law Association’s position.

“The decision is to be appealed and as such the final verdict on the constitutionality of the law is yet to be determined. It is important to appreciate, however, that it is not in dispute that the criminalisation of same-sex, consensual sexual relations infringes important constitutional rights.

“The legal issues to be determined on appeal are whether a law which admittedly violates constitutional rights is nevertheless saved from being struck down by a constitutional provision which protects old colonial laws, and whether the legislature by a special three-fifths majority can override what they know to be a constitutional violation.”