THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM writing in response to the letter from Anthony Gumbs, which appeared in The Sunday Gleaner of April 16, 2006, entitled 'No to Thai Prostitution Model'.
I wish to clarify for Mr. Gumbs (and I do not purport to speak for Mr. Lascelles Chin) but I was present both in Thailand and at the press conference and at no time was there ever any representation made by Mr. Chin that there should be any 'prostitution model'. To the contrary, Mr. Chin highlighted that like Jamaica, Thailand has laws proscribing prostitution. However, in recognition of the fact that commercial sex work contributes to HIV-prevalence - a public health risk - the Thai government took a decision to implement a condom-use policy among sex workers which led to 100 per cent condom use and a corresponding decrease in the number of HIV cases.
The main points then, of Mr. Chin's statement are that:
1. HIV is a public health risk.
2. Commercial sex work contributes to the number of HIV cases.
3. Commercial sex work is present in Jamaica.
4. However, in Jamaica we have no true estimate of the number of persons engaged in commercial sex work.
5. Because sex work is illegal, persons who are at risk of contracting HIV remain under-ground out of fear of prosecution and discrimination. This has an effect on the number of HIV cases in Jamaica because these persons will not seek treatment due to the fears already mentioned.
The fact of illegality also has the effect of denying these persons the protection which the law affords to every other person, against violence, since yet again, commercial sex workers stand to be prosecuted or discriminated against if they report violence committed against them while engaged in these activities. Thus, the degradation meted out to these persons is compounded by the mere fact that there are no policies in place (except a criminal code) to deal with the issue of commercial sex work.
PROTECTION NEEDED
The criminal code has proven ineffective to deal with this issue. A fortiori, no criminal code can sufficiently address the public health risks associated with commercial sex work. Commercial sex workers are patronised by persons who lead so-called 'normal lives'. In the context of HIV, these 'clients' are also in need of protection, not only commercial sex workers. Therefore, contrary to what Mr. Gumbs has stated, the call by Mr. Chin for discussion of this issue is out of concern for the well-being of his fellow Jamaicans - all of them.
At no time do I recall, did Mr. Chin ever suggest that sex work in Jamaica should be legalised. Rather, the goodly gentleman made it abundantly clear that from a public heath perspective (in the context of reducing HIV and AIDS) and also to protect the rights and dignity of persons engaged in commercial sex work, Jamaican policy makers should give due consideration to the present state of affairs and how the situation might be improved in light of the public health risk which it presents, as well as from a human rights perspective.
I wish, therefore, for all who have been misinformed or those who may have misinterpreted the utterances of the Honourable Lascelles Chin, to be guided in these terms.
I am, etc.,
VIVIAN A. GRAY Jr.
Advocacy Officer
National AIDS Committee
Ministry of Health
2-4 King Street
Kingston
