The Liming House

Good to see you again. Glad you enjoy the Limes.

About damn time too.

The Express reports:

Citizens will no longer need a visa for the French overseas territories once their stay is 30 days or less.

Foreign Affairs Minister Paula Gopee-Scoon announced yesterday that following an approach by the Government, the French Government has agreed to exempt nationals of this country travelling to Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Martin and French Guiana from a visa requirement once their stay is for 30 days or less but does not exceed 100 days within a period of 12 months. Gopee-Scoon said the agreement would be in effect in about one week’s time with the exchange of diplomatic notes.

She also disclosed that the Government had also applied to the European Union for a waiver in the visa requirements for short trip stays in the Schengen zone which comprises 25 European countries.

Citizens of Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados and Saint Kitts & Nevis are already exempt from Schengen visa requirements.

(Pace India.Arie)

I started growing my locs five years ago. Since then, I’ve fielded a host of questions from friendsfamilyclassmatescolleaguesrandomstrangers, including but not limited to:

- Do you wash it?

- How do you wash it?

- Can I touch it?

- Does it itch?

- Is it real?

- Does it hurt?

- Don’t you miss your real hair?

- Are you a Rasta?

- Why did you do it?

This last question, now as then, is the hardest to answer. My responses have varied, depending on the questioner, the context of our relationship and how I felt that day. I lacked a substantive, definite, “because.” I didn’t have “the answer” that the questioner – and I – was looking for.

Then I read this response to a column by Steven “Freakanomics” Levitt on the economic disadvantages of “sounding black” and of having a “black” or “Asian” name:

But if you’re intelligent and hard working, shouldn’t your resume get you in the door no matter what name is at the top? No, you’re saying. The world doesn’t work like that. But couldn’t it be said that the more HR people who encounter intelligent, hardworking people with names like Shaniqua Keisha Jones, the more people will stop pre-judging people with names like Shaniqua Keisha Jones.

Ditto “sounding black,” having a southern accent or a clearly Asian name. Deleting these things could be construed as self-hate, denial or disingenuousness. Is it better to be sneaky, calculating and take a “by any means necessary” approach in the workforce? Is “sounding black” something people need to apologize for? Do the people who “sound black” need to “invest in” the ability to sound more white? How best to bust a stereotype? By playing into it? Or defying it?

My hair is about defying stereotypes. To plagiarize myself,

I’m a twenty-something overachieving chick with dreadlocks and a predilection for wearing Converse to work

So there it is. I am my hair. I am challenging, I am defiant, I do not apologize.

And the next time some Wall Street multimillionaire or Oxbridge-educated middle-aged perpetually entitled white British editor encounters a twenty-something <insertracehere> woman from the Caribbean, or someone with locs, he will pause.

He will pause because he will remember someone else who was more than the stereotype.

Someone who was more than just her hair, or her ancestry, or her age, or her gender, or her accent, or her taste in shoes.

Under Article 8 (18/1) of the Immigration Act, homosexual men and women are not allowed to enter the country. Section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1986 criminalises “buggery”. This Section provides a penalty of up to life imprisonment, if committed on a minor; up to 10 years’ imprisonment if committed on an adult (18 years) by another adult; up to 5 years’ imprisonment if committed by a minor on an adult. Section 16, relating to “serious indecency”, provides a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for homosexual acts between men and between women.

This is one of those topics that I have long sought to write about and never quite succeeded. I have drafts saved on this very subject dating back to 2002. What’s changed? Very little, and therein lies the rub.

And then there were these comments from Bruce Golding, the Jamaican Prime Minister, during an interview on the BBC’s Hardtalk program:

BBC: Do you in the future want to live in a Jamaica where a gay man or a gay woman could be in the cabinet?

BG: Sure they can be in the cabinet – but not mine.

BBC: Do you want to live in a Jamaica where they can be and they should be and it would be entirely natural for them to do so?

BG: I do not know that that is the direction in which we will go.

So far, so straightforward, right? No. It is more nuanced than that, because here’s the exchange that preceded those quotes:

BBC: What are you doing about [the violence toward homosexuals in Jamaica]

BG: Well, we have given instructions that crimes against persons because of their sexual orientation must be pursued with the same vigour of any other crime.

BBC: But they are not, are they?

BG: Generally speaking they are – they are now. We do have a long-standing culture that is very opposed to homosexuality. I think that is changing. I believe there is greater acceptance now that people have different lifestyles, that their privacy must be respected.

BBC: Are you more accepting now … because in 2006 you were quoted in the Sunday Herald newspaper: “Homosexuals will find no solace in any cabinet formed by me.”

BG: In appointing a cabinet, a PM exercises judgement. That is his exclusive responsibility. There is no right to be in a cabinet.

BBC: But you have just told me that Jamaica is on track to give equality before the law to homosexuals – but you yourself have said that “homosexuals will find no solace in a cabinet formed by me?” That has nothing to do with equality before the law? Do you not have a duty to consider people on their merits – for cabinet positions indeed in any part of government?

BG: No. I consider people in terms of their ability and the extent to which they are going to be able to exercise their function, their independence.

BBC: You also clearly and patently consider them in terms of their sexuality.

No. That’s a decision that I make. That’s a decision that every prime minister makes. A prime minister must decide what he feels would represent to the Jamaican people a cabinet of ministers who will be able to discharge their function without fear, without favour, without intimidation. I make that choice.

BBC: What kind of signal does that send about Jamaica to the outside world? Indeed, to potential investors, to countries that look at Jamaica.

BG: One signal that it sends is that Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside. We are going to have to determine that ourselves and we are going to have to determine to what extent those values will adopt over time – to change in perception and to change in understanding as to how people live. But it can’t be on the basis that lobby groups far and away from Jamaica will define for Jamaica how it must establish its own standards and its own morals.

And that, in a nutshell, is why homophobia in the Caribbean is so difficult to understand, so easy to misconstrue, and so challenging to confront – it is a morass of Victorian prudishness and religious fundamentalism combined with an extreme interpretation of masculinity and imbued with a sense of developing-country nationalism and a post-colonial assertion of sovereignty.

And it is everywhere. The Barbados Underground blog, for instance, is apoplectic that the “homosexual agenda is gaining ground in Barbados,” noting:

The issue of homosexuality will predictably evoke a flurry of comments which will seek to label the Barbados Underground household as homophobic. By now it should be evident that the BU household is firmly moored to a traditional set of values which has served our household well. The unwillingness of Barbadians to be proactive in structuring the kind of society which it wishes to adopt on a moral front is disappointing and regrettable.

Unfortunately certain core values which have guided our society very well through the years are being diluted. We appreciate that we have to respect the sexual orientation of all of our people. However, there is nothing to say we have to agree with it. We may appreciate in the so-call free world market the need for Barbados to operate in a common economic space. What we don’t appreciate is the willingness by Barbados to prostitute its value system for thirty pieces of silver.

The argument there is similar to Mr Golding’s in its appeal to “core” values, the rejection of any attempt to superimpose an alien (read: non-Bajan) and “dilutive” set of beliefs onto the “traditional” way of doing things.

Still, there is one aspect of these positions with which I do agree – any change in attitude or legislation cannot merely be a response to political or economic pressure from the UK or the US.

The Caribbean, in asserting sovereign rights, needs to take some sovereign responsibility.

So where to start? One suggestion comes from James Marchand, in a letter to the Jamaica Gleaner:

Put reasonable laws in place

The gay people of Jamaica do not need the permission of churches, Government or public figures to live our lives and have sex with whom we choose. However, we do want the Government to put its policy where its mouth is and ensure that violent acts against people of different sexual orientation and also other vulnerable members of society, such as the disabled, mentally ill and even people living with HIV and AIDS, are punished to the full extent that law provides.

This should be done with the creation of a hate crimes law which would serve specific penalties for persons accused of harming or murdering people because of their differences, whether perceived or otherwise.

In reality, it only takes an assumption or a suspicion of being homosexual in some Jamaican communities for someone to be attacked and brutalised. Of the many cases that have come to public attention of ‘gay’ men being beaten and even killed, very few have been as a result of these said men being caught in compromising positions. Yet, they are set upon and, in what might seem like sanctioned events, the all too familiar scene unfolds.

Indeed.

Further reading

1. ‘What Jamaica wants‘ – Church, gays divided on PM’s BBC interview – Jamaica Gleaner
2. Homophobic silliness and a failure of leadership- Jamaica Gleaner (Editorial)
3. Preparing for the World’s Backlash – Francis Wade/Moving Back to Jamaica
4. “Jamaica is represented in our imaginations as a space in which heterosexuality is homogenised national identity” – Tino Pinnock / Raw Politics Jamaica Style

Inquiring minds want to know:

1 – What are the economics of the proposed government-sponsored, Caribbean Airlines corporate/executive jet service?

2 – What are the current arrangements for government travel? Where do ministers et al go that requires the use of a jet leased from Guardian Holdings? How much does that arrangement cost? Why is it preferred to flying commercial services, either local or international?

3 – From Ria Tait’s Trinidad Express article on March 4 2008: “On allegations by Opposition Chief Whip Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj that CA received $350 million from the Government for the venture before Cabinet held discussions on the proposal last Thursday, Lok Jack said Caribbean Airlines did get money because “we had to begin negotiations and make downpayments”.” Caribbean Airlines had to make downpayments on an aircraft that hadn’t even been approved yet? Really?

4 – From the same article: “[Lok Jack] declined to say exactly how much money Government advanced to the airline or how much the service was estimated to cost on a monthly basis, saying that the airline was in a competitive situation.” Is anyone looking into this? We have a right to know how much our government is spending on this. And with whom, exactly, is CA “in a competitive situation” in the business of providing private jet travel to the government?

4 – Ibid: “Lok Jack said…the Government was “very interested” in being able to go on transatlantic trips and to travel African countries and therefore CA chose an aircraft which had the range to make such flights.” Why the focus on African countries? How much does a long-haul flight from Trinidad to Lagos (say) cost, in terms of fuel and wages for the pilots, etc? Are there no commercial alternatives?

5 – Ibid, but jumping around a bit: “[Lok Jack] confirmed statements in a Caribbean Airlines press release that Government would be underwriting the cost of the venture, eliminating “the commercial risk” to Caribbean Airlines.” Who owns Caribbean Airlines, exactly? What is the equity structure?

6 – In Juhel Browne’s Trinidad Express article on March 2 2008, Prime Minister Manning says a Caribbean Airlines jet service would be a cheaper air travel option for the State: “Right now, when some of us, when the Prime Minister travels in the region now, we do so by contracted private jet services. It costs a lot of money,” Manning said. Contracted jet services for regional jet travel? Seriously? Exactly how much is a lot of money? And again, why are commercial alternatives rejected?

7 – Who will have use of the services? Government only? Friends, family members, well-wishers? The Opposition? At what cost? Who pays what?

The relevant company insiders are fairly high-profile types who should be reasonably easy to track down. I’m tempted to make some calls.

When I grow up, I want to write like Michael Harris.

I discovered him quite by accident – trawling the (badly implemented but kudos for even having one) RSS feed of the Trinidad Express, lured by the headline “Party politics and the voice of the people.”

The man is a true-true political commentator, and an aphorist after mine own Oscar Wilde-loving heart:

In short, neither good governance nor good government is possible in the absence of politics and there is no politics without the voice of the people. (From Party politics and the voice of the people)

In all the essential areas of life each year seems to be a replicate of the previous year. It is as though we are locked in a time warp of helplessness in which all our yesterdays become our tomorrows. (From Solving the political paradox)

Since it is not necessary to engage in real politics outside the party there is no politics within the parties. People do not join those parties because they are inspired by a vision which they are committed to work towards. People join those parties in the hope of securing placement by means fair or corrupt. (From New politics and old paradigms)

(Here’s a Google search which indexes all his articles at the Trinidad Express)

These are the works of a political animal, in the true and Aristotelian sense of the term.The first episode – Solving the political paradox, cited above – of Mr Harris’s 2008 commentary for the newspaper ended thus:

In the midst of all of this neither government nor people have much time to devote to the fundamental questions of what kind of society we wish to live in and what system of governance shall we build?

Those questions are fundamental to political discourse, and to politics itself, but I have never heard them answered – or even addressed – by a modern Trinbagonian politician. (I welcome examples to the contrary.)

It was only because I’ve been reading these columns that I was not wholly disheartened by the subject of the latest post over at The Manicou Report – a Facebook group with the subtle title of Fuck the PNM.

Mani’s take on this 365-strong anti-PNM army – and there are similar Facebook groups dedicated to every major political party in Trinidad – is that it reinforces political tribalism.

Says he:

If the makers of the group are trying to propagate the same type of tribalism by setting people even firmer in their ways than they are now, then they are on the right track. But if they want to get people to think for themselves and change voting patterns, then an “F*** the PNM” group on Facebook couldn’t possible be the way to do it. You can’t woo people over to your side by insulting them – a point lost on some politicians.

I would take his analysis a step further. The “party politics” in T&T is what gives rise to such self-defeating factionalism. This group is just a Web2.0 representation of the discussions taking place in rum shops, on street corners and in expensive coffee shops on university campuses.It is time for some new conversations, for discourse that dares to be more than a rehash of the same old same old.

Michael Harris has kicked things off in fine fashion. Who’s next?