The release of the 2013 NHAC/CADRES survey on the attitude of Barbadians towards homosexuals facilitates discussion on several different aspects of this issue and a key finding is that fact that the vast majority of Barbadians are either tolerant or accepting of homosexuals.
Barbados is, in fact, one of the countries with the lowest level of homophobia in the Caribbean, which is perhaps not surprising.
However, these data expose a conundrum that arises when our generally progressive attitude toward homosexuals is set against our support for the notorious buggery laws which criminalise “gay sex”.
Barbadians are not peculiar in this regard since CADRES has noted a similar trend in all countries surveyed and the proportions of the disconnect is unsurprisingly related to the overall level of homophobia identified in each country.
This conundrum requires some explanation, which the study provides; however, it does little to illuminate the reasons why this disconnect exists and it remains a matter about which we can only speculate. Simply put, our reported level of homophobia is 17 per cent, which effectively means that 83 per cent of Barbadians are either tolerant or, better yet, accepting of gays.
This progressive position is buttressed elsewhere in the study by the fact that an overwhelming 82 per cent of Barbadians do not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 82 per cent agree that violence against sexual minorities is discrimination.
However, the data go in a completely different direction concerning the “buggery” laws (which 54 per cent of us support). Clearly, we do not understand these laws and, furthermore, do not appreciate the broader objectives of our justice system. This reality was illuminated in the study when an average of 56 per cent of Barbadians admitted that they supported the retention of the buggery law because they considered it an expression of our moral and religious values. Certainly this assertion is not instinctively negative, but it does raise the spectre of active and passive laws with consistent expectations that require the enforcement of some laws while others are to be considered persuasive.
This is an interesting phenomenon which is manifested in relation to other social issues such as the use of marijuana. Contemporary statistics to confirm this might be available shortly; however, previous CADRES studies have noted an admitted consumption level of marijuana which was greater than the level of support for its decriminalisation.
This type of contradiction is reminiscent of the Catholic approach to the gay issue, which is one of loving the sinner, while loathing the sin and while this mantra has served Catholics well for centuries, it will present challenges when used as a basis for the criminal justice system. Certainly our regard for the law is enhanced when we observe all laws with equal reverence and expect the police to enforce all laws with equal zeal.
In the context of issues related to homosexuality, our unwillingness to appreciate the extent to which the state is guilty of the same discrimination we abhor creates substantial complications.
One such issue was highlighted several years ago by Professor Walrond, who noted that the buggery laws help to perpetuate stigma which has become a public health problem. Similarly, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago recently landed herself in an interesting muddle when she argued that her government did not have the moral authority to decriminalise but would not tolerate discrimination against Trinbagonians on the basis of sexual orientation.
Clearly, this issue is not well understood and politicians who should know better do not help the situation by “playing to the gallery” of confused people who believe there is some virtue in perpetuating this type of legislative discrimination.
More recently, our Prime Minister denied the existence of “anti-gay” laws here while later expressing his Government’s opposition to discrimination when called upon by one LGBTI organisation. His language was skilful (as always) but ignores an equally obvious reality and does little to clarify the confusion Barbadians wallow in regarding this issue.
Like all governments across the region, ours has been unwilling to speak squarely to the law which is the source of much of this stigma, largely on account of their sensitivity to public opinion which is largely ill-informed.
It appears as though there is not a single Caribbean government that is progressive enough to speak frankly to this 16th century law, its danger, and irrelevance and moreover to set a timeline to repeal it. In the meantime, we seem destined to wallow in this state of collective confusion.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).