“Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty” (Wikipedia)
Although I am anxious to move to different issues of equal or greater relevance, I feel constrained to draw attention to what appears to be either an unfortunate misunderstanding or an even more unfortunate effort to mislead the public of this country.
As a person who is often on the minority side of several national debates, I have frequently noted the point at which opponents send a clear signal that the battle has been lost. This point is characterised by either ad hominem attacks or the more strategic diversionary tactic.
This past week both tactics emerged from one section of the Christian community which was assisted (perhaps unwillingly) by this newspaper.
The initial onslaught came from an attorney at law who spoke at a forum created by an organisation called Project PROBE, which itself ought to be the focus on a forensic investigation regarding its portrayal of the truth. That attorney indicated that he felt the church needed to be more vocal on moral issues in this country, which should immediately cause one to ask whether he has been living in a cave for the past year since there is no institution here that has been more vocal on these issues. It is nonetheless reasonable that THE NATION would report this gentleman’s view. However, its editorial of last Thursday was curious since it appeared to agree with him to some extent.
The most causal reading of this newspaper or attention paid to call-in programmes would demonstrate that the Christian community in all its extreme (and often ill-informed) incarnations has been out front on issues of morality generally and homosexuality specifically. It is therefore curious that this newspaper would argue that “one columnist has outgunned Christians on radio call-in programmes” since the columnist was himself “outgunned”. It would be difficult to see how I (presuming I am the single columnist) could “outgun” an entire “Christian coalition” that descended on me from all angles this past week. I can perhaps take comfort in the assumption that THE NATION might have been arguing that this group’s inability to gain ascendency in the debate suggests that I have logically outgunned them if not numerically.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this editorial is that it “accidentally” perverted this issue by confusing issues that are on the table with those which are completely irrelevant to this local debate. Sadly, this “mistake” was also made by the Anglican bishops in the West Indies province during the course of last week, although little has been said of their opinion in these pages.
In both instances the suggestion that there is a “gay agenda” being promulgated and that agenda includes gay marriage, which is being supported by international governments, is both untrue and unfortunate. This fiction of a “gay agenda” is an insidious tool of the Christian Right which has attempted to distract thinkers. Constant reference to it by intelligent people is unfortunate since we should all know that an agenda is accepted by a group or association neither of which its proponents can identify. The gay agenda is therefore as much a fiction as the “black agenda”.
Although I have frequently referenced the progressive positions of leaders like Barack Obama and David Cameron whose views on these issues are no different to mine, it is entirely untrue to state that either leader has indicated a desire to “punish” countries that do not legalise gay marriage. Cameron’s position and more recently Obama’s speaks specifically to the issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as manifested in laws which criminalise the act of “buggery”. These are the same laws to which Opposition Leader Mia Mottley referred one decade ago and which international conventions, to which Barbados is a signatory, condemn.
To suggest therefore that the issue of same-sex marriage has been revived a decade after Mottley’s statements were made, is a most unfortunate attempt to confuse issues that are very different, and frankly both the Anglican leadership and THE NATION newspaper ought to know better.
As much as I (and others) believe that gay marriage should be the logical direction that progressive countries take, I appreciate that it is a struggle for another time. The central concern for me and the one to which Cameron spoke is the issue of discrimination and the existence of “buggery laws” which prescribe a prison term of 15 years and offend the Constitution’s privacy guarantee. Perhaps these wise entities which claim to guard the rights of the oppressed can now address the real issue instead of purposely avoiding it.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
