Former Minister of Health David Estwick was quoted on a Gay Website as saying “… legislation criminalizing homosexuality and prostitution in the Caribbean region were among difficult issues that the political directorate must take up urgently.” He did go on to be quoted “What are we going to do about reaching men who have sex with men when we have laws against their sexual activity in most Caribbean countries? “ Further investigation shows that the source of the story was the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Earlier this month Minister Chris Sinckler at an international conference in Switzerland had this to say “Barbados has made it clear to the United Nations that it will keep the death penalty and maintain its position on keeping prostitution and homosexuality illegal.” (Caribbean360.com).
Leading into the last general election former Member of Parliament Reverend Joseph Atherley and now Minister Esther Byer-Suckoo clashed heads on the issue of homosexuality. As we know homosexuality is not an issue which politicians are inclined to state a position, i.e. in Prime Minister Bruce Golding style, although Acting Minister of Education Patrick Todd came close in parliament this week by cajoling his fellow parliamentarians to declare their sexuality, especially those who declared their assets…!
Minister Todd has since attracted scorn and ridicule at his call…was he wrong?
California is held up as the barometer to mark the progress of the Gay Agenda. The recent green light given by Californians to Proposition 8 (52.1% to 49.9%) must have been a devastating blow to the movement. In the recent news it has been reported that 18,000 same sex marriages in the state are likely to be overturned. We will leave it to the legal eagles to anticipate how the legal maneuvers around this case will shake-out. The BU household feels fairly confident that it is a bold Supreme Court that will reject the wish of the PEOPLE who voted YES to Prop 8 in the November election.
An interesting statistic which emerged from the Prop 8 vote was the high percentage of African-Americans who voted yes, was it 70%? Bottomline, the Gay Agenda has been stunned in their quest to amend existing laws to recognize same sex marriages. One thing we know about the Gay Lobby is its persistence, they will be back.
A few weeks ago we thought we heard Peter Wickham making a telling observation. He grumbled while on national radio, he was the host of the afternoon talk show, that Black people seem to have issues! We sensed his frustration when forced to comment on the outcome of the Prop 8 vote. What we found interesting was his willingness to shift his target from the backward Barbadian to the Black race.
The simple point we hope to make: homosexuality and immigration are hot button issues which are being engaged internationally. They are some people who would want Barbadians to believe that on these issues we are hillbillies and stand alone.
Barbados Underground 
@ ROK, I really do not want to know where you got your grounding in law. However, why should I need to show you a definition in an Act when for those who understand statutory interpretation the term is already defined? And you say the definition of rape in the Act is clear? Do have another look.
When I say laymen must not argue law, I simply meant tey must not cavil over arcane points of legal principle, not that once it is defined they should not discuss it. But they can’t presume to say what the law is (as you are doing) in the absence of some legal training. And I am sorry, dictionaries, while they may be used, come fairly low down on the scale of interpretive tools. I don’t know, finally, which question of yours I am avoiding or evading, but I am telling you again, you are wrong in your definition of buggery.
Clearly consenual sex between adults in the privacy of their bedroom is the central issue here… HOw do we police this?
Do we assume because there are two men living together that they are bulling?
Do we depend on nosy neighbours to inform the authorities??/
clearly if it is nonconsensual then it is rape
clearly if one of the pople involved is undergae it is rape…
But explain to me how we police this again???
And how do we police men who bull women?
Still waiting!
I will only make a general observation since other jurisdictions have been mentioned.
The SOA -sexual offences act- UK 2003 has redefined the offence of rape so that it now includes non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth and has also introduced a new offence of “assault by penetration”. Parliament agreed the same maximum penalty of life imprisonment for these offences.
It is impossible to say that any one form of non-consensual penetration in inherently a more serious violation of the victim’s sexual autonomy than another…the sentencing starting points should apply to all non-consensual offences involving penetration of the anus or vagina or penile penetration of the mouth.
The above is Law.
“Consent” is very important.
I naturally cannot speak for others but I have never thought the “idea” of playing around in human faeces either female or male a pleasant experience…it is one I have never indulged in…with no regret.
Who cares about what you get up to YB…
what you get up to is your business aint it?
me January 2, 2009 at 11:58am
You wrote” Do you excuse men who like to foop women in their boxies”
You asked. I have no wish to be excused.
Dear ROK:
On Christmas Day you wrote” If a policeman happened upon two homosexuals in private in the act, do you think he would succeed with the prosecution of any of them?”
I ask : And if a policeman happened upon a happily married couple in the act of an*l intercourse would he arrest them? would the DPP prosecute? Would a jury convict?
Because this couple who has been happily married for more than 25 years would under Barbados law be committing a CRIMINAL offense.
me
You are absolutely correct. Therefore I go on to say that the buggery provision in the sexual offences act makes homosexuality illegal is stretching it a bit too far.
Furthermore, if you accept that no court or even a jury will convict for consensual homosexual acts under the buggery provision, it means that a person will only be convicted under this provision if it is non-consensual. So tell me what is the meaning of buggery?
Yes there is a legal definition but not in the Act. People have been convicted of buggery in recent times and it was surely not for a consensual act, but a criminal act. So tell me how wrong my definition is.
I just rereda what Ruel Daniels wrote and I have come to the conclusion that he /she must be a law student or someone with very little life experience. I also assume that he/she does not know any homosexuals personally.
I can also assume that he/she is a perfect heterosexual who has sex exactly as proscribed by ‘Nature.’
He/she needs to egt out and interact with real people instead of living in a fantsay world!