Tue | Nov 21, 2017

Why the buggery law should remain

Published:Thursday | August 3, 2017 | 12:08 AM

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The issue of whether the buggery law should be repealed has once again dominated conversations by every stratum of national life. One would not be far from the mark if he opines that the raising of the temperature in this round of debates is due mainly to the unlikely source - the head of the Anglican Church in Jamaica.

The bishop is convinced that the buggery law should be repealed forthwith because it is cast in antiquity and was foisted on us by our colonial masters. He has since been strongly supported by no lesser persons than the Revs Garnet Roper and Ian Boyne - two veteran churchmen - who are singing the same sanky.

But note would have been taken by the keen observer that none of these learned gentlemen made any attempt to offer any scientific reason(s) for his stance. I would not be surprised if these gentlemen have consoled themselves with the thinking that antiquity is a sufficiently scientific reason; since that concept seemed to have occupied the central part of their discourses.

 

STOP RIDING ON THE BACK OF ANTIQUITY

 

For if lawmakers ever reach the place where delusion overtakes rational thinking, causing them to be convinced that antiquity is a sufficient reason to repeal a law, then it won't be long before there will be demands for the repealing of the law which criminalised beastiality and the sexual relationship between a man and his mother; since they are as antiquated as the buggery law.

Those persons who seem to have a perennial problem with comprehending, continue to wonder why buggery is criminalised while acts such as formication and adultery are not. The simple explanation is that while the person found guilty of murder can be sentenced to death, the person found guilty of stealing can only be sent to prison for a maximum number of years. And why is this so? Because murder is viewed by lawmakers as more heinous than stealing.

There is a chasm between grievous and abominable and unnatural. It means, therefore, that churchmen like the head of the Anglican Church and Garnet Roper and Ian Boyme should end their campaign of vilifying the scholarship of those they love to designate fundamentalists.

Cashley Brown

Cashleybrown@yahoo.com