Several weeks ago, commissioner of the Boy Scout movement Dr Nigel Taylor made several comments which have ignited a debate on what should properly be contextualized as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue has however morphed into one which has been viewedfrom the perspective of human rights, which is perhaps unfortunate for reasons which space will not permit me to explore.
The initial comments seemed relatively innocuous and it would appear that in this instance, the presentation of these comments by THE NATION should be the proper location of this discussion. Naturally, I am anxious to jump on the pro-gay bandwagon and attack Dr Taylor for his apparent backwardness, but something seems odd about this situation.
If the report is properly read, Dr Taylor indicated that they were closely monitoring the international Boy Scout movement’s evolution as it relates to attitudes towards gays and atheists. He continued to note that the policies of the local movement were traditionally linked to thoseof the international movement and as such, the organization is hostile to openly gay people and sexual deviants, and defers to “God”as the creator. Certainly this has always been the case and people like myself and Dr Taylor who were or continue to be associated with the local movement were/are comfortable with these restrictions.
In my own case, I was once sufficiently comfortable with these restrictions to be a member. However, I have now evolved to the point where I find these stipulations to be both backward and offensive. In the case of Dr Taylor, he is comfortable taking a path of lesser resistance and I am entirely comfortable that this is within his right as a minister of religion and a clinical psychologist.
The simple fact is that this issue, which was projected as a “no gays” policy of the local Boy Scout movement, is neither new, nor does it run afoul of our nation’s constitutional principles.
We live in a country where there are laws that are fundamentally more discriminatory than any policy of the Boy Scouts, and these laws are presumed to be appropriate by the majorly of us. One should therefore ask why discrimination on the part of the Scouts would be either a surprise or a disappointment.
To the best of my knowledge, membership in the Scouts is, as with membership of any church, entirely voluntarily and at the discretion of the leadership of both organizations.
It is ironic that both organizations are becoming more irrelevant with each day that passes and neither appreciates the wisdom of inclusion as opposed to exclusion. However, this is merely an observation that speaks to the organization’s “wisdom” and not a mandate for change.
In both instances, the “right” of these organizations to be exclusionary is not questioned, but prudence of their attitude can be challenged from several different perspectives.
The most significant of these is a perspective that should be obvious to Dr Taylor who has, for the last three years, chaired the National HIV/AIDS Commission (on which I served as a member). One of “our” key strategies in the battle to stop and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS was a frontal attack on stigma, discrimination and I also presumed homophobia.
There can be several different approaches to the definition of discrimination; however it would be challenging to identify one that excludes the apparently unrepentant attitude of the local Boy Scout movement.
On a personal note and in Dr Taylor’s defence, I should declare that I know the commissioner personally, having served under him on the HIV/AIDS commission, I generally found him to be committed to ending stigma and discrimination.
He appeared to be one of the more progressive ministers of religion in this country when it comes to such issues.
He has not attempted to clarify his position in the wake of this initial report and one therefore continues to wonder whether he is closely monitoring developments in the international Boy Scout movement and counting down the days till we can fall in line and end discrimination in ours, or if his intention as commissioner here is to “swim against the tide”.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
