America Corrupts the World: Even under Trump, the American Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica flies the LGBTQ-activist “rainbow flag” under Old Glory. But Jamaicans know that immoral “gay-” and “transgender” “rights” inherently destroy real freedoms. Photo: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, June 2017.

Folks, the following column was published Sunday in the Jamaica Gleaner. It is written by Shirley Richards, a wise Christian advocate for genuine rights and moral truth whom I had the privilege of meeting in Jamaica when I spoke there in 2013.  Below Richards ably explains the difference between genuine rights based on a moral philosophy, rooted in timeless Judeo-Christian truth–and counterfeit “gay/transgender rights,” which “compete with, and undermine, fundamental human rights and freedoms.”

Smart Jamaicans–and peoples all over the world–are trying to learn from the USA’s and the West’s failed experiment of creating sodomy-based “rights,” which became the foundation for the modern Western abomination of “same-sex marriage.” Meanwhile, the United States and other decadent Western nations–and leftist organizations like the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch–are pressuring Jamaica and many other nations to join our illicit “rights” revolution.

At right is a current photo of the American Embassy in Kingston, flying the LGBT “rainbow flag” (as it did under Obama)–thereby telegraphing to this small nation that, even under Trump, we will use our immense political and economic power to “persuade” them to embrace a system of newfangled legal “rights” that inherently destroys liberty. Let’s hope we don’t prevail, and that Donald Trump gets America out of the business of exporting the immoral, anti-Christian LGBT “rights” revolution. — @Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; see my LifeSiteNews articles here.

___________________

Majority view on gay rights must have sway

By Shirley Richards

Published in Jamaica Gleaner, June 11, 2017

In an article written by Dr. Carolyn Gomes published [in the Jamaica Gleaner] on Sunday, May 28, 2017, she stated, in relation to the development of the [Jamaican] Charter of Rights: “The Parliament, however, appears to be timid. It has not acted on the recommendation to ensure that all citizens are protected from discrimination on the basis of disability, health status, if they speak Patois, have a mental illness, or are different in sexual orientation and gender identity.”

These were recommendations made by various interest groups. They were debated by the joint select committee of Parliament on the Charter of Rights (Constitutional Amendment) Bill and decisions were made to accept or reject accordingly.

The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.

In determining what is in the “best interests” of the country, they cannot afford to disregard the voice of the people. Specifically, the members of the House of Representatives are there to represent the people, not to foist their own viewpoints on the people, a point Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, as a member of said House, may do well to remember. As the late [First Premier of Jamaica] Norman Manley, QC, said on the occasion of the passage of the 1962 [Jamaican] Constitution:

“As a politician, sir, I would be the first person to acclaim every instance in which the public succeeds in having their way … for we, sir, are their servants and are here to execute their will.”

Non-discrimination

As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.