Transcript of Ms Laureta Vivian Lampteys Remarks to Peace FM

http://news.peacefmonline.com/news/201108/61962.php I am not going to give my stand on homosexuality. That was not even the question I was askedThe question was, What is your view about the debate? I said that the debate was going on about human rights and the point I was trying to make was, yes there is a rights discussion, but I did not that that it was an issue for CHRAJ at the moment. For a couple of reasons I said that homosexuals have rights as individuals that dont need to be legislated. They have rights against nondiscrimination, against defamation. I pointed out that murderers, even convicted murderers, something totally abhorrent in our society, if you attack a murderer, the state will protect that murderers rights to be protected and will jail you for slapping that murderer or beating them or shooting them or whatever. Those rights go beyond you being gay. They are your rights as a citizen, they are universal rights. But if the reason you are attacked is because you are gay, you have rights, the state will protect that. So it is that first and foremost, that they have rights anyway. The debate makes is sound like gays are being persecuted and I felt that they do have rights against persecution. Point one. Secondly, there was a question about the debate being about bigger rights like same sex marriage. I said that I dont think that the country is ready for that at all. I think we are far from that. That even the countries where they recognize civil unions or even formal marriages, they did not get there overnight. It developed, their communities developed and gay activists lobbied and there came a point when the society was ready to give those categories of people those rights. They didnt have them and that is how rights and law develop, they develop to meet the needs of the society. Society says that we think this is a good thing, we think this is not a good thing but we are a tolerant society and we want to allow these people these rights. So I said that I dont think we are there. I think we are far from there. I was not giving you a view of wether we should or shouldnt be, I was talking about my view of what is. I dont think as a society we are ready to give homosexuals, lesbiansthe whole category of people any of those kinds of rights. I think we have religious, moral, traditional, many, many barriers to that. And I dont think we have to simply copy the Western world on everything because someone can say this is where you should be in terms of rights of individuals. I think we should be wherever our country should be and no two countries are the same. So that in terms of the additional rights. However, the main point I wanted to make was that the debate has been about rights and I think the real issue is the legal side of things and that it doesnt make sense to me, there is some illogic arguing for increased rights for homosexuals and at the same time saying that by law homosexuality is a criminal offense because if that law we are all meant to be law abiding citizens. How can we say it is criminal then you want charge to protect the very activity that is criminal. That was the crux of my point. I was saying that in theory, it is said that it is criminal, and therefore first of all, therefore nobody should be looking to CHRAJ or any human rights to be promoting the rights, protecting the rights of individuals to conduct an activity that the law says is criminal. So my point was that we should focus on the law, not that we should decriminalize it, but that the debate should not be focused on the rights and protection of rights that are perhaps not there yet. Because what the law says, because at the end of the day I am a lawyer, but even as a non lawyer, we want to encourage law abiding citizens. So if there

is a law we should obey it. And therefore I said, and Ill say again, that if that is what the law does, and if homosexuality is a crime in this country, then people should not have an issue with a minister who says he will prosecute homosexuals. I read a lot of debate a couple of weeks ago on this, on the minister that said that, I may feel how is he going to do that, are you going to find the people on the streetThat does not change the fact that I think he has got a right to prosecute homosexuality if it is a crime. I think that is what the minister is meant to do. I want our prosecutors to prosecute crimes as vigorously as they should. But to answer your questions, and this is what I addressed, I dont believe that the law does criminalise it. That is the crux of my point, not that I believe it should be decriminalized, you know, youre going to find that in my interviews, I am not going to be giving my views about things like that, because my view is irrelevant. Youre going to take my view as speaking for CHRAJ. When I speak for CHRAJ ?. As a lawyer I can give a view, I feel that it does not make it a criminal offense. It makes unnatural carnal acts a criminal offense, and I said therefore if you want to make being a homosexual an offence, then it is not captured to me by the law as it stands. Therefore, if as a society we feel that homosexuality should be a crime, then something needs to be done about the law, because it doesnt. What about homosexuals who never commit those acts? There may be. Not every adult is engaged in sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual. Just as there are women and men who decide not to have sex forever or until they are married, there may be homosexuals who do the same. If it is only the act that is criminal then I dont think you can say the whole category of people that you think engage in those acts are criminal. If that is what you want to achieve as a society or as the legislature in creating those laws, then I will say that I dont think the law achieves that and they better look at it. But if as a society, because of this debate, we feel that homosexuality should not be a criminal offence, then it should be debated so that in recognition of that fact that homosexuals do engage in these acts, that can be considered captured by the law, then there should be a debate. I am not here to say it should be changed or should not be changed, that is simply not how I see my role, and certainly not in the first week of starting off. But even later, I was talking about the debate, if we dont think it should be a criminal offense to be a homosexual, then lets hear peoples views. And I made the point that laws are changed and they do develop to represent the values and mores of the community and if right now our values say it should not be a criminal offense it does not mean that anyone is condoning homosexuality, and this is the point. You can say it shouldnt be a crime, without saying that youre condoning it. I was not saying it should or should not be a crime. I was not giving my view at all, I was saying that if as a society, you open up the debate, because it is already begun, and the mass view is that it should not be a crime, then you move any hit of it off the law books.