Photograph by Nadia Huggins

Photograph by Nadia Huggins

 

Religion in the Caribbean is an enduring institution and an integral part of our culturescape. Besides the ways it enriches the spiritual lives of religious people, it creates social spaces for communal fellowship and where useful friendships are formed. Religion has also historically operated as a mobilizing force against oppression. Recently, the Grenada Conference of Churches spearheaded innovative debt reduction negotiations to alleviate Grenada’s national debt; they continue to engage meaningfully with the Government of Grenada and the IMF to avoid structural adjustment strictures that are potentially damaging to Grenada. I want to therefore state clearly that this article isn’t intended to discredit religion or religious institutions in any way, but rather to question a regional practice whereby religion is allowed to force and shape public policy. Public policy is the action taken by government to address a particular issue affecting the public. As the examples below indicate, religious involvement in public policy in the Caribbean often operates in ways that are not only harmful in their own right, but which fundamentally compromise ‘democracy’, one of the catch phrases, which, together with ‘jobs’, ‘economy’ and ‘development’, politicians pull from the hospital suitcase every 5 years.

Currently, there are 3 main regional public policy issues for which religion is allowed to determine the discourse,  policy and in some instances, law.

  • Equal rights for Sexual Minorities (often called ‘Gay’ rights)

  • Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (often reduced to ‘abortion’ rights)

  • Casino Gambling

Another issue which I address in this article is the banning of artistes with violent/sexual lyrics.

Equality Rights for Sexual Minorities

The regional Gay Rights scrimmage revolves concerns 3 main issues;

  • Gender policies (most notably in Trinidad and Tobago and Belize)

  • The move to challenge some discriminatory sexuality related legislation (Buggery, Cross Dressing and Immigration).

  • Allowing ‘gay’ cruises to dock at regional ports

There are also other related scrimmages. The Guyana parliament in January 2001 legally amended the Guyana constitution to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, the President  Bharrat Jagdeo refused to sign because of religious pressure, thereby withholding validity to the amending bill, preventing the equality it sought. Also, In Trinidad and Tobago, in March 2013, “ex-gay” Ministries pastor, Phillip Lee was invited to speak at Queen’s Royal College on ‘Homosexuality and the reality of Change’. Sexual orientation change efforts have been repeatedly condemned as dangerous and ineffective by medical professionals and former ex-gay ministries. In 2012, Lee met with education officials to develop an anti homosexuality curriculum.

The Gender Policy Issue

In 2002 in Trinidad and Tobago, the UWI Institute for Gender and Development studies (St. Augustine) developed an innovative gender policy which among other things sought to shift fixed and false ideas about gender which produce gender inequality and violence. It also advocated LGBTI equality. The religious objection following its development prevented its implementation until 2009, and even then, the policy implemented was a diluted caricature of the original that avoided “any issues relating to termination of pregnancy, same-sex unions, homosexuality, or sexual orientation.” The objection revived in Trinidad in 2012, when government was considering another draft. After, consultations with religious groups, Minister Marlene Coudray in 2013 clarified that the draft policy before the committee avoided gay rights. She explained that God was still in the constitution (and everywhere presumably) and that the Inter Religious Organization (IRO) were against extending equal rights to LGBTI people. In a tale of one region, Belize in 2013 similarly produced a draft gender policy addressing some of the same issues and making some of the same recommendations as the Trinidad and Tobago policy. The Belize policy too received a spirit whipping in the ensuing religious uproar, but Prime Minister Dean Barrow, showing courage unbecoming of politicians, maintains that he “will not withdraw the gender policy.”

Human Rights Cases

There are now cases before the High Courts in Jamaica and Belize, as well as before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) challenging legislation which discriminates against LGBTI people. Among the range of responses to the cases, religious organizations have organized public protests; the so called ‘Love’ March in Jamaica (love? *scratches head*) and the ‘March for the Constitution’ in Belize (sarcasm I hope). The marches advocate among other things continued discrimination against homosexuals and the Belize march continues to advance across Belize, with figures of coffins and hanging men bearing the name UNIBAM, the new nickname for homosexuals since the Belize case brought by the organization  (United Belize Advocacy Movement) bearing that acronym.

People continue to violate and kill people perceived as LGBTI in the Caribbean. The violations and killings are facilitated by hatred of LGBTI people; the hatred is partially facilitated by the kind of marches referred to above which among other things position LGBTI people as different and depraved.

The Gay Cruise Issue

In November 2007 CMC reported that the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines prevented a cruise ship with gay passengers from docking at its harbors. We don’t know whether the move was driven by concern or dislike for the passengers. Also in 2007, the Grenada NNP administration considered banning a gay cruise ship. Then tourism Minister, Clarice Modeste-Curwen stated “As a government, our policy is that we do not support it (homosexuality),” and “We have not taken a policy as to whether the ships should land in Grenada or not,” After several hotel booking cancellations, about one week after the first statement was issued, the minister sang a different song. It went; “We will continue to welcome all visitors and we will work, along with our population, to ensure that their time and ours will be enjoyable. Grenada respects the rights of all persons of all persuasions and lifestyles.” This song change and its attendant circumstances expose our vulnerability as post colonial societies in an increasingly globalized economically unequal world. It should cause us to question our almost exclusive reliance on tourism for economic movement. The cruise was allowed. Religious objectors had much to say; more to say than our Post-Colonial and Caribbean Studies academics.

Reproductive Rights

Generally, abortion in the Caribbean is criminalized except in the case of threat to the life or health of the pregnant mother. Cuba, Puerto Rico (being part of the USA), Martinique and Guadeloupe (being part of France), Barbados and Guyana are excepted. Although non-health related abortions are criminalized, 93% of abortions happen for social and not health related reasons. Religious groups in Trinidad and Tobago and Belize objected to the abortion rights suggested by the respective draft gender policies. The objections relate to the religious view of human life as a divine gift beginning the moment of conception; abortion is therefore equated to ‘taking human life’. But what is the ‘human life’ anti-abortionists wish to protect and at what cost?

Normally a foetus will develop into a thinking, feeling human being no doubt; but prior to the third trimester medical science indicates it is incapable of feeling, thought and independent survival. The general objection to non-medical abortions therefore absolutely prioritizes a foetus (which may be incapable of thought, feeling and survival) over the mother (who most definitely thinks, feels and stands to bear the burden literally and figuratively) and any hardships she might face, including any health and psychological hardships not serious enough to constitute a threat to her health. The objection also prioritizes the foetus over the capacity of the mother to adequately provide for a child. In some senses then, the objection is more concerned with the fact than the quality of human life.

In Trinidad and Tobago, as previously discussed, reproductive rights were consequently omitted in both the implemented policy and the new draft. The omission is somewhat surprising because more than half the Trinidad and Tobago population favoured extending access to abortion (not to suggest that the majority gets to decide these issues) and despite the well documented risks to many women who perform hanger abortions and other unorthodox procedures because the laws deny them access to legal abortion services.  As in Trinidad and Tobago, doctors in Belize are alarmed at the dangers and risks faced by the growing amount of women opting for unorthodox abortions; women in the Caribbean want access to this service despite what religion says.

These examples are country specific but this narrative occurs across the Caribbean where religious involvement in law and public policy continue to retard human rights.

The Casino Gambling Issue

In Grenada, around 2010, Swiss developers Zublin re-applied to the NDC administration for a gambling license to build a hotel and casino as part of a $ 350 million EC dollar port expansion project. Zublin estimated the project would create 2000 jobs, inject 450 million EC into the economy and boost tourist arrivals. The initiative was supported by the Grenada Chamber of Commerce which argued that it would help Grenada recover from the recession related loss of 800 million dollars Foreign Direct Investment and from the 30% unemployment crisis. The Conference of Churches mentioned earlier for its contribution in spearheading a radical debt reduction effort vigorously objected. They cited as reasons the risk of increased crime, prostitution and gambling addiction.  The government didn’t grant the license, citing similar reasons. In a release on the issue, then Prime Minister Tillman Thomas said  “I am even stronger in my stance against casino gambling now because I know the majority of people in the country are behind me on this issue” (I must have missed the referendum).

Dr. Roy McCree, a sociologist  at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies at UWI (STA) references a Trinidad and Tobago study done in response to similar objections to casino gambling in Trinidad and Tobago. He says;

“The finding showed that there was no significant impact on family life or use of discretionary income and there was not the disaster that some people were predicting…

Ironically, while certain forms of gambling meet with moral outrage and panic, as a society and culture in the Caribbean they are other modes of gambling somehow we have adjusted to or accommodated such as horse racing…bingos and raffles,”

The National Lottery Scheme, which by its nature is government organized gambling also falls neatly into that list of accommodations. It is easy then to wonder whether the concerns by the Conference of Churches and and the government of Grenada were religious as opposed to a public interest ones, though couched in terms of the latter.

When government changed in February 2013, discussions with Zublin reopened; public discussions about gambling also  re-opened. There was talk of passing laws allowing casino gambling exclusively to foreign tourists to appease the religious objectors. This awful paternalistic idea would reduce Grenadians to second class citizens on the assumption that we are incapable of avoiding perceived vices and of responsibly managing our financial affairs; I wonder then if government would consider passing a law that only foreign tourists could drink rum at rum shops? (a much more relevant threat to breadwinners’ salaries in Grenada).

The Bahamas has benefitted from casino gambling since 1973. However, their casino benefits come at the cost of second class citizenry; local citizens are prevented from casino gambling for the same reasons discussed above and with the churches’ support.  

In the Eastern Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia and St. Vincent all have operational legal casino gambling enterprises.

The Artiste Banning Issue

Dancehall artistes, perhaps most notably ‘Vybz Kartel’, have been repeatedly prevented from performing in some places in the Caribbean. Technically the artiste isn’t ‘banned’, but the relevant Labour Ministries refuse the work permit necessary for the artiste’s performance, often resulting in financial losses to promoters. Mostly, the relevant ministry isn’t required to provide a reason for work permit denial, though in the instances where there was some official commentary around the banning, it is evident that officials took issue with the violent/sexual lyrics. The practice amounts to moralistic government censorship.

Censorship can be beneficial. Children for instance ought to be protected from material their parents consider ‘bad’ because, being young, they don’t have enough context to absorb such content meaningfully. TV show ratings and age requirements for performances with sexual/violent content are therefore justified. Public radio censorship is also justified because public audiences include children, as well as adults who feel offended by sexual/violent content. No such justification exists for artiste banning. Artiste banning goes beyond protecting children and into controlling what adults can/should consume for entertainment. It not only restricts the free movement of labour guaranteed under the CSME and the artiste’s right to freedom of expression, but also the companion (though conceptual) right of adults to freedom of entertainment. That is, the freedom to be entertained by ‘bad’ artistic content (including not only a Vybz Kartel show but also ‘Scarface’, ‘Project-X’  and ‘Breaking Bad’).

The examples above betray the hypocrisy in this kind of moralistic censorship. Is it that Kartel’s lyrics expose people to more ‘depravity’ than Hollywood, or have we bought the idea that violent/sexual artistic content from the Global North is more respectable or acceptable than the same content expressed in our own tongues?

The Meaning of Democracy

Conversations around these issues call into question the meaning of democracy. Does it mean majority rule without more? Does it also mean protection for minorities and the restraint of government’s power?

Trinidad and Tobago Chief Justice, Ivor Archie, in his new law term address in September 2012 answers neatly. He says;-

“Permit me to quote Dr. Eric Williams as we stood on the brink of a new experiment in democracy as an independent nation:

“Democracy means more, much more, than the right to vote and one vote for every man and every woman of the prescribed age. Democracy means recognition of the rights of others…Democracy means equality of opportunity for all in education, in the public service, and in private employment. Democracy means the protection of the weak against the strong.”

Implicit in the last sentence is the notion that a constitution does not merely express the will of the majority, but it also protects the weak and the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Popularism is often inimical to the human rights of minorities and the first function of the courts is to hold all of us to a higher humane standard.”

The criminalization or restriction of particular behaviours by any country must be justified. However, such justification cannot be based on religious beliefs without more, even when the beliefs are held by the majority of citizens. This is because no one religion can claim moral authority above all other religions. Therefore any country’s choice to criminalize or restrict particular behaviours must be based on universal principles of justice, with moral authority independent of religion; principles that all citizens can endorse, regardless of religion.

Moving Forward

Moving forward involves understanding our cultural landscape. Religion has been part of the mortar with which our societies were built and are being built. We see ourselves as people of faith (despite the hypocrisy) and our public officials see themselves as people of faith with a public mandate. Strict separation of church and religion is naive. What is helpful is a consistent practice of scrutinizing harmful policy decisions as well as challenging the unstated immunity to criticism religious involvement in policy has enjoyed.

Religious involvement in law and public policy is inflexible; in fixing itself in a limited philosophical stance, it prevents the dynamism required for practical responses to Caribbean societies’ concerns. When religion influences policy along religious lines, fairness, practicality and justice get sacrificed on the altar of dogma.

On Belize’s 32nd Independence anniversary (September 21st 2013), PM, the Honourable Dean Barrow affirmed:-

“Government will therefore fully respect the right of the churches to propagate their understanding of the morality, or immorality, of homosexuality. But what Government cannot do is to shirk its duty to ensure that all citizens, without exception, enjoy the full protection of the law.

After all, the Belize Constitution that affirms the supremacy of God also affirms fundamental rights and the dignity of the individual human being.

That same Constitution further declares that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to non discrimination; to freedom from interference with their privacy; and to freedom from unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation.

There is, I submit, no logical inconsistency between these different tenets of our Constitution. And Government, the Churches and the Belizean polity must find a way to uphold all the principles of our foundation document.”

If only more Caribbean leaders were as brave and principled.

Religious people have the right to practice, propagate and affirm their religion. They do not have the right to force others to abide by their religious beliefs or standards; Caribbean countries should not be quasi-theocracies.

 

__________________

Richie_Maitland

Richie Maitland
Co-Founder Groundation Grenada
Richie Maitland is a Grenadian attorney and activist. He is currently working as an attorney with the Caribbean Forum for Liberation & Acceptance of Genders & Sexualities (CARIFLAGS) and a Deputy Director at Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation (CAISO).

On Religion and Rights in the Caribbean
Tagged on:                 
  • Pingback: [Video] Groundation Makes Heads Spin at National Consultation on Constitution Reform | Groundation Grenada()

  • Pingback: Groundation Letter: 2013 We Stepped off the Internet! | Groundation Grenada()

  • Great article Richie. Very well done.

  • This is an excellent article Richie – very well rounded and sound. Great job!

  • Another brilliant piece, Ritchie. I had actually never really thought of artist banning/censorship in that way, thanks for opening my mind. As for the heavy-handed role that religion (namely Christianity, or some perversion/often Eurocentric part of it) plays in Caribbean public policy, I’ve seen it taking a dangerous turn for the worse. I will be sharing and reblogging this article for sure … gonna reread once more.

    • Richie Maitland

      Thank you Kadie, I’m always glad to share my perspective. Share and Re-blog at will.

  • Barbara

    Very interesting article(s)—put together so well and I still shake my head at these ongoing same issues- how many church-goers play the lottery? and yes, I think the rumshop spending harms the local household more.
    Please keep these articles flowing, thank-you!

    • Richie Maitland

      We will Barbara. Thank you.

  • Yvonnerae

    You mention religion as a faction against the rights of same sex unions, as you say. much has been said and done in the name of religion. As a lover of the Most High God, Neither He nor His Word requires defending as it speaks for itself. but for the sake of argument, the lifestyle I choose to live is my God given right to practice and to remind others that He calls us to righteousness and to reject sin. Our God is a Loving God and in His Mercy and Grace given us a mind to think, and a Heart to love Him first and foremost. This a lifestlye choice for those who set the laws of the land. We Belizeans who choose to live by the Laws of God believe it supercedes any other law and so we guard the law of God with fervency in that we understand that God made a female for a male, not male for male or female for female. In as much as this is the law of our land it is one that is adhered to because in our hearts and mind it is a higher law. We do not impose our way of thinking on anyone, rather we continuously pray for those who choose a lesser law and reason that we take no rights for granted.

    Using the argument of rights, I believe we as a people also have the right to decide we will have no part in replacing God’s laws for man’s law. For what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his soul. We hold the souls of all men to be precious to God and a gift to be treasured, so it is not with anamosity that we insist on God’s law, but rather with the Love of God, who gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved. This is the will of the people.

    What if a thief should come and steal what you hold most precious because he feels he has the right to take what you have worked long and hard for? Should the law be changed to accommodate his belief? Or if a murderer feels he has a right as a human being to rid the world of certain individuals he believes are menace to him, do we change the law to accommodate his beliefs?

    When one battles for rights it is in most cases a right that is not right for everyone as we as human beings have different mindset. I curse the day when wrongs become rights to acccommodate and promote contradictions to God’s Word. It is not religion that is being challenged, it is God. For this is His law.

    The way of God is peace, make no mistake I would rather have Jesus!!! For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16 KJV)

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      You have the right to believe what you believe and to continue being prejudicial against LGBGT people. But Belize is not a theocracy, the same bible you rely on also condemns the worship of ‘false gods’. By any standard of christianity hinduism is ‘false god worship’, yet the constitution, recognizing that Belize has many different people with different beliefs, affirms the right of everyone (including hindus) to practice their religion. If christianity is allowed to dictate law, hindus would be outlawed; do you agree with that? We don’t. Your right to religion does not include a right to discriminate against others on the basis of your religion. Belize is as sexually diverse as it is religiously diverse.

      Also, there is no comparison between homosexuality on the one hand and murder and theft on the other. Murder and theft involve one person exacting a detriment on another without that other’s consent; homosexuality does not. There is the world of difference.

      • Yvonnerae

        With much respect to your point of view, as you state I choose to hold onto my belief. Call it prejudicial if you will. As you are no doubt aware, we as human beings adhere to a variety of prejudices, for our opinions are in fact based on what we learn and choose to retain in our hearts.

        You spoke on the issue of abortion, I merely took it a step further to make the point that the law of God does not change no matter who accepts it. The Christian Bible does say though shalt love The Lord thy God with all your, heart, mind and soul. So the thief comes to destroy God’s laws. The fact that Belize’s constitution allows for idol worship does not negate the fact that it is unacceptable to God. That is between each man and God & it allows it only to the extent that each person can serve the God of his/her choice. this does not change God’s law. The issue as I understood it, was not whether certain persons have the right to practice their lifestyles, but whether they could be married. Marriage is an institution God created for a male and female for the continuation of life. His Word says, “For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife.” This was and is theological teaching. It is not a governmental teaching. It is a Church matter. This is why the Church is involved and the people who understand this theological edict, continue to make our voices heard on this matter, since some believe they should be afforded marital rights. Marriage is the source by which God has called mankind to sustain life. The courts are being asked to infringe on this institution when it is in fact not a governmental issue. The thief has entered unto our midst to rob us of the very gift by which life is sustained. Man can decide what they will, you may fight this battle until you die, but God’s word does not change. We understand that all things will pass away but God’s unchanging Word will last forever. No one disputes whether a person can practice the lifestle he or she wishes. Belizeans are objecting to the law changing as it pertains to marriage. If the argument is to separate the things of God from the things of Government, then no Government should touch marriage as this belongs to the Church! The Government allowed freedom of religious practice to sustain peace and ensure the people who believe differently are not persecuted. There is no wrong in this because God does not force Himself on anyone. It is each one’s choice to make. His way is the way of love, no matter what.

  • I love this article

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      Thank you. Feel free to share- Richie.

  • Maxine

    What a refreshing and wonderfully articulated piece! I almost discontinued reading after the first paragraph, but I am so glad that I didn’t. Richie, you have covered a number of issues with a great degree of clarity, humour and conciseness ( not to mention well-placed sarcasm). Best read of the day thus far. Thanks Petchary for re-posting.

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      Readers like you are good for my ego; thank you. This is my best read for the day, lol.- Richie

  • Reblogged this on Petchary's Blog and commented:
    Here’s another reblog, this time from a great website in Grenada. This excellent article by Groundation Grenada’s co-founder Richie Maitland covers a number of issues that preoccupy our religious leaders right across the English-speaking Caribbean, while questioning the imposition of these religious (read “Christian”) views on these specific issues. This has serious implications for our democracies and the proper functioning of our societies. Much wider and deeper dialogue is required. Do enjoy this thought-provoking article and share widely. Your views are always welcome, of course… And thanks again to Richie for this.

    • Maxine

      Excellent re-post as always.

  • Great read ….

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      Thank you man. Feel free to share.

  • Donna

    Hi Richie
    You can’t know how elated I felt to read this and learn that such a forum actually exists for discussions on issues relating to Grenada, no less! I’m currently doing my doctoral studies at Western University, Canada and prior to this have been a secondary school teacher for 11 years home. I’ve written articles before and would love to learn more about Groundation Grenada, and even pen a few articles, if possible. I kept nodding my head when reading this post about religion and its place in public policy. In addition to these and issues of sexual orientation discussed in this article, I want to add people with disabilities and development of human relations to the table.
    Again, great initiative, Richie!!!!!!!!!!

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      Thank you Donna. I emailed you. I hope we continue corresponding.- Richie.

  • Great article Richie!!

    • Richie Maitland

      Thanks Peggy. We want to keep live issues live.

  • This was a great read Richie. I’m auditing a course called Religion, Law and the State and I’m going to pass it on to my lecturer. It articulates so clearly the problem with allowing religious views to dictate public policy decisions. Religion has definitely been a tool against oppression in the past but I find so much recently that it has been wielded as a tool of suppression.

    • Richie Maitland

      Feel free to share it Rilys, I’d feel honoured to have it as part of course readings.

  • I would love to re-blog this (I blog from Jamaica and it really is a very important issue indeed in my view). Do I have your permission, Richie?

    • Groundation Grenada Action Collective

      always feel free to share our posts!