Daniel Thwaites | Holness comes out of the closet

In view of the prime minister's skilful handling of the anti-buggery question from the hosts of Good Morning Britain, I recall back in 2011 when we last heard what Mr Holness thought about taking gays out of the closet and putting them in his Cabinet. His view seems to have evolved away from Bruce Golding's memorable "not in my Cabinet!"

Remember now that both Andrew and Portia had been asked that question in a pre-election debate. Let's put aside for the moment that the question is purely academic as both leaders have shown since then that as a matter of practical politics, they have no aversion to appointing gays to their Cabinet. And, hey, that's a good thing, right? It's just that back then, Portia was prepared to admit what Andrew was not.

Back in 2011, I had been enjoying the debate in the company of a mixed audience in a rum bar. Among the gathered was a crew of men who generally wouldn't take kindly to introduction of an openly gay, or even suspectedly gay, person in their midst. The leader of that particular group, a very vocal advocate for Mrs Simpson Miller, had been looking forward to the debate for some time.

As we know, alcohol has a disinhibitory effect and sometimes causes people to say exactly what's on their minds, which is one of alcohol's great defects. It is also why some people say that they can't trust anyone who's afraid to drink around them. Well, this was one such occasion where the vats of J. Wray & Nephew had opened the floodgates of the inner monologue.

 

HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE

 

When Portia announced her tolerance, it had an immediate impact on Mr Rum n' Milk Supporter, who was crushed and defeated. That lasted for only a few moments, after which he recovered and ruefully muttered to himself something to the effect of "Portia seh wi nuh fi kill dem bwoy deh."

Notice that there was no mention of killing in the debate, but the immediate translation was swift and accurate: if they can be admitted to the Cabinet, then plainly, that means that they must be allowed to live.

By the way, in terms of encouraging empathy, I believe that it would go a very far way if people simply accepted that homosexuality is not the result of some perverse choice, but rather one of the immutable characteristics, and, therefore, ought not to invite the same kind of moral condemnation as voluntary actions and conditions.

Actually, back in 2011, no less a philosopher than Khago addressed the controversy in Tun Up De Ting:

Yuh nuh see:

Gyal dash weh a road, but some bwoy

Dem a play stubborn and don't want none

Put mi han' pon de Bible, I swear to Your Honour:

"Believe me! Ah gyal ova gun!"

To the Khagoan way of reasoning, women are so irresistibly attractive that he's even committed to swear a preference for them over precious weaponry - and under pain of perjury. And we know how important the Jamaican man's gun is to him.

The other clear implication that we can derive from these classic lines is that same-sex attraction is a matter of stubbornness of heart.

I am not in agreement with Khago on this point. My own observation and the copious heartfelt testimony of genuine souls have led me to conclude that same-sex attraction isn't the result of obstinacy. It is mostly not chosen, and people are simply born with, or early on, develop same-sex preferences.

I certainly consider the introduction of civility and tolerance into these matters a moral advance. There has been far too much cruelty and discrimination against gays even to the point of killings, maiming, and social ostracism. I am firmly of the view, though, that most of this behaviour can and should be repudiated on ordinary grounds of respect for others and doesn't require the wholesale destruction of every other social norm.

 

GOOD IDEA

 

Still, it's the casual cruelty with which homosexuals are treated that accounts for why I had been quite convinced that removal of the anti-buggery law was a good idea. But now I'm not so sure. The trouble is that the more I hear from the gay activists about their plans is the more uncertain I become about my previous view.

Now, I'm shifting to truly being on the fence because the tolerance that I support clearly isn't enough for the hardcore activists. Toleration implies a level of disapproval that is considered quite suspect because it denies wholesale approval and endorsement, and frankly, I'm too old-fashioned and conservative to go that far.

Of course, repeal of the anti-buggery law is hugely symbolic. My concern is that it won't stop at buggery but is a wider campaign that will continuously ratchet up its demands. The Gleaner has already ridden out on to the bleeding edge of this debate and endorsed what they call 'marriage equality'. After that, no doubt, will follow all the transgender bumfluffery.

 

JEALOUS GODS

 

And then a never-ending list of new requirements and sacrificial victims will have to be offered up to satisfy the revolutionary guillotine because the gods, of the sexual revolution are jealous gods, and, ultimately, will not permit any heresies that speak of boundaries and limits to what is permissible.

So it is that I've come to feel - horror of horrors - that the situation we have now may be preferable: formal illegality with the deliberate failure to enforce. That involves, no doubt, a degree of hypocrisy, but as La Rochefoucauld noted, hypocrisy is the respect that vice pays to virtue.

For one thing, I've always been deeply uncomfortable with the reflexive hostility to Christianity and the impatience with the majoritarian moral instincts that are displayed by the gay campaigners I read. Instead of trying to widen the ambit of the moral imagination and inviting people to empathy, they largely choose condemnatory tactics, and, in some cases, intimidation.

What's going on here? Again, let's turn to the philosopher Khago for guidance:

"A de gyal dem tun up mi ting

Pagan cyaan't guh roun' mi ting

Dem ah try fi corrupt mi ting ...

Pagan inna mi Tabernacle!"

Here, Khago is quite right. It's the resurgence of paganism against Christian culture that isn't content with mere 'tolerance' but has a much wider and aggressive agenda. And here, the agenda of resurgent paganism dovetails nicely with the bien pensant neo-Marxism that is another part of today's orthodoxy. For while Marxism may have failed as a political programme, it has flourished, and, in fact, been triumphant as a social one.

So let's celebrate the advance that Mr Holness has evolved to meet Mrs Simpson Miller and that, therefore, supporters on all sides will find cause to also "evolve". But after that, unless someone can convince me that we're not simply beginning a crawl down the road to utter anarchy, let's have that democratic debate Mr Holness talked about, and maybe, let's actually hurry up and do nothing.

- Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.