Statement by the President of TT
Her Excellency Paula-Mae Weekes
17 April 2018  
Read HERE

In Wake of Decision on Buggery:
Citizens Must Resist All Attempts to Sow Division
Last Thursday, April 12, the High Court ruled favourably on a Constitutional action declaring sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, Ch. 11:28 of the Laws of Trinidad and Tobago to be unconstitutional
The State almost immediately indicated its intention to appeal the ruling.
All parties anticipate that the legal matter will only be concluded at the level of the final Court of Appeal, the Privy Council at some time further down the road of time.
Within minutes of the decision, it is reported, that some persons advocating LGBT rights were physically assaulted by others claiming to oppose homosexuality on the basis of religion.
By the next day several comments on the decision of the Court were coming from different quarters including religious and pro- and anti-LGBT rights activist organisations.
What Was the Decision About
In the case Jones v AG of Trinidad and Tobago, CV 2017-00720, Justice Devindra Rampersad of the High Court declared sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act to be unconstitutional, that is, in breach of several rights of the individual guaranteed under section 4 of the Constitution.
The Court considered whether the Sexual Offences Act is protected by section 6 of the Constitution (the savings clause) which immunises laws in effect before the 1976 Constitution from scrutiny as to their constitutionality. It ruled that does not apply as this law enacted in 1986 is not a re-enactment of a 1925 Ordinance, but, a new law.
The case considered sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, and no other section.
The text of these sections is shown at left:

From the words of s. 13, it is clear that anal sex involving a male and another male or a male and a female is an offence, whether between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom’ and is punishable by 25 years imprisonment.

Section 16 makes oral sex or any other use of the genital organs for sexual pleasure, other than actual intercourse, an offence. However, it is not an offence if the same acts are between a) a husband and wife, b) consenting adults over the age of 16 and c) and persons exempted from conviction under s. 20 of the Children Act.
Several persons commenting on the Court’s ruling have put various interpretations that are simply NOT matters which were part of the case and there for NOT part of the decision.
For example, a lot has been said about rights to same-sex marriage.
This afternoon, one talk-show host, reading from a law dictionary and not the Act, proceeded to include Bestiality in the definition of Buggery. In our law, the Sexual Offences Act deals with bestiality in section 15. That section formed no part of the case.
Fanaticism Impedes Logic
One spokesman for a religious coalition supporting the retention of the buggery law declared that the Judge “imposed his bias….secular” position in deciding the matter.
This pastor denounced the Judge for “not applying the tenets of religion” in deciding the case.
What the pastor forgot is that ours is NOT a religious state. Trinidad and Tobago is a secular state, the State – the organs of governance – is officially neutral in matters of religion and there is the Rule of Law.
Our Courts interpret and apply the law on the basis of principles of Law, not Religion. It is not an ecclesiastical Court.
To demand that the Court apply religious positions is to ask that the bias of another section of the population be applied.
This is not to be confused with the fact that our population is a multi-cultural and multi-religious one.
In any case, not even all the religious organisations have the same views on the matter of the criminalization of buggery. While this pastor supports it being a crime, the Archbishop reminded us that the Catholic Church does not agree that it should be criminalized.
In expressing views on this decision, we must all seek to be objective and not allow our own opinions on morality or religion or anything else cloud our judgement.
Most important, we must not use our own positions for or against the ruling (which is not even final) to become a basis for promoting hatred, discrimination, division or violence against others who do not share our opinion.
It is most unfortunate that on Friday morning, the same pastor put in the public domain the idea that there could be violence against members of the LGBT community as a reaction to this Court decision.
Such violence or hatred against others is bigotry and is not what the people of this country stand for.
The people of this country have always set an example of unity to the entire world in our diverse ethnic, religious, cultural demography.
We must resist any and all attempts to sow division among our people by any individual or group whether they support or oppose this decision and we must not descend into anti-people and anti-social homophobic thinking or action to disrupt our unity.
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting
For Democratic Renewal
Of Our Society
 
16 April 2018