Peter Espeut | Meaning what you sign

When Jamaica signs an internationally binding treaty, do we mean what we sign to? When we take an oath, do we mean it?

The Jamaican government has announced its intention to sign the Samoa Agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Organisation of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS). This binding treaty between nations and multilaterals is presented as a “trade and aid” agreement, but it ties receipt of financial aid to supporting certain cultural norms the EU wishes us to support. When a country signs the Samoa Treaty they solemnly agree to change national laws – and maybe even the constitution – to conform to its terms.

Signing the Samoa Agreement binds the parties to provide “universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and education, as well as the need for the delivery of sexual and reproductive healthcare services” (Article 48 Section 7 of the Caribbean Regional Protocol). What does this mean?

“Comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information and education” means that we must teach our children how to use their sexuality – not just about the mechanics of it, but also with a particular suite of sexual ethics: that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both acceptable and morally equivalent (they are your choice); and that sexual intercourse is not related to procreation (it is closer to recreation). Safe sex is promoted – which really means that sex is promoted; safe sex means avoiding sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and avoiding pregnancy; both are lumped under the rubric “sexual health”, which gives the impression that pregnancy is a disease – that pregnancy is NOT a sign of good health, and NOT a sign that the human body is working perfectly!

AVOID PREGNANCY

In the best tradition of Orwellian doublespeak, “sexual and reproductive healthcare services” does NOT mean helping women to get pregnant and reproduce, but helping women to avoid pregnancy and avoid reproduction; and should the inconvenience of a pregnancy occur, reproductive healthcare means to help them to terminate the pregnancy. Once you promote sexual intercourse for recreation – because of the pleasure of it – then you have to help the pleasure-seekers to avoid the inevitable natural biological and human consequences of their actions.

More than 50 years ago when I was in sixth form (in the zoology stream), as part of the study of the theory of evolution, we learnt that all successful species develop biological mechanisms to promote reproduction so that their genetic material can be passed on. Along the line I read a book from the class library entitled The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris, wherein he argued that whereas almost all animals are driven by instinct to have sexual intercourse, because humans have rational intelligence enabling them to foresee consequences, despite human instinct, few sensible human females would have sexual intercourse with nine months of pregnancy as a reasonable consequence. Morris proposed that intense sexual pleasure – in particular the female orgasm – evolved as a way to entice human females to have sexual intercourse, get pregnant, and thus continue the species. It makes sense! There was little evidence that females of other species have orgasms, and even if any were found, it would not disprove the hypothesis.

What has happened is that the biological purpose of having sexual intercourse – the continuation of the species – has been supplanted by hedonistic considerations. The women want the pleasure – the incentive – but not the essential human activity of child-bearing (and child-rearing). And they claim that this hedonistic anti-human position is a human right. The right they are really claiming (but don’t want to name) is the right to casual sexual intercourse outside a committed human relationship.

And the Samoa Agreement wishes us to adopt this approach to life.

Biologically, the essence of being human is to survive and thrive in the habitat, and to reproduce. Humans reproduce sexually, and an essential part of being human is to be male or female to be able to procreate. Socially functional human animals develop a gender identity to match their sexual identity which promotes reproduction of the species; failure to do so is both a biological and social dysfunctionality. It cannot be a “human” right to deny an essential part of human nature, and to promote dysfunctionality as “normal”.

SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT

Please note that here I am not making a religious argument, but a biological and scientific one.

The reason Jamaica’s Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith gives for Jamaica signing the Samoa Agreement is that “Jamaica is a dualist State and there is no international agreement which will ever supersede Jamaica’s Constitution”; she is correct, for we will have to change the Constitution to harmonise with the Treaty. She says that Jamaican law does not facilitate the automatic incorporation of international agreements; she is correct: we have to pass enabling legislation to give the agreement effect.

I could never accept that the Jamaican government would sign such an important treaty intending not to implement any part of it; that would be dishonest and duplicitous. If the Holness government signs this agreement, I take them at their word: that they intend to change Jamaican law and the Constitution to legalise abortion and buggery.

I take note that a number of pro-abortion and pro-LGBT civil society groups – including Jamaicans for Justice and this newspaper – have called on the government to sign the Samoa Agreement. I note that recently, several civil society organisations called on the government to “decriminalise abortion and protect the sexual and reproductive health rights of Jamaicans” (notice those code words again).

I would have expected that by now, intelligent people would have used their powers of reason and logic to discern how their position is illogical and false, and will exacerbate social dislocation. Sexual crimes are increasing; more than 80 per cent of Jamaicans are born outside a stable union; boys lack positive role models; the number of gangs is increasing; we will soon have to import labour as our birth rate is declining. Instead we should be promoting sexual intercourse in the context of stable family life, and self-restraint as a general principle, including in our eating and drinking habits, and in sexual matters.

Where will this Samoa Agreement take us? There is a word that describes the exchange of matters sexual for financial aid. Do we need aid that badly?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com