Submission 20
Constitutional Reform Committee
In care of:
Director General - Governance
2nd Floor E. Humphry Walcott Building
Corner of Culloden Road and Collymore Rock
St. Michael
I would like to introduce myself to the Constitutional Reform Committee. I am
In 2021 when the Republic Status Advisory Committee had its call for submission an exploratory note was submitted on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community. It encompasses the talking points of key stakeholders in the LGBTQ+ community such as LGBTQ+ COs, independent activists and responses to from community survey that 341 persons partook. This would have been submitted in June/July on behalf of group that worked ensure the LGBTQ+ community had a voice in the constitution process.
I would use this opportunity to highlight the pervious concerns submitted
This submission consists of two parts:
(i) Areas of key concern raised by key LGBTQ+ stakeholders and/or survey respondents
(ii) Responses to the Charter from stakeholder and Social Justice Committee meetings
1. Religious language
survey:
58% strongly agreed that political decisions should remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.
50.6% believed that the constitution should protect freedom of and from religion
46.9% agreed that public activities should remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices
58.4% agreed that political decisions should remain uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices
2. Family
survey:
Regarding founding a family:
86.3% agree that same sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples
84.1% agree that LGBTQ+ persons should be able to legally adopt both individually and as couples
80.8% agree that both persons in a same sex couple should have the right to be on their child’s birth certificates
17.1% agree that they are concerned with the deterioration of the nuclear family ( i.e Mother, Father, Children)
8.8% agree same sex couples or LGBTQ+ persons should not be allowed to raise children.
Regarding marriage
70.6% agree that marriage is the same regardless of same sex or heterosexual
9.8% agree that same sex marriage should be illegal
64.8% agree that same sex marriage should be legalized
71.6% agree that all marriages should be considered equal
7% agree that same sex couples should have civil unions but not marriages
74.9% agree that every couple (same sex or male females) should have the option to choose whether they want a marriage or civil union.
71.3% agree that same sex couples should be able to have common law marriages after 5 years of living together like heterosexuals
90.9% agree that if one of the persons is a committed same sex relationship is in the hospital, their partner should be able to make medical decisions on their behalf.
92.2% agree that if one of the persons in a committed same sex relationship dies their partner should be able to make funeral arrangements.
88.1% agree that if one of the persons in a committed same sex relationship dies, their property should be passed on to their partner in the same way as with heterosexual couples.
92.5% agree that same sex couples should be able to apply for mortgages together.
90.9% agree that same sex couples should be able to access the same benefits as heterosexuals (e.g., tax benefits, maternity grants, pensions, spousal benefits etc)
91.3% agree that same sex couples should be able to share insurance benefits
7.2% agree that same sex couples should have none of these rights
From stakeholder consultations:
There was a general wariness of the family being mentioned without making it explicit that family does not just mean a nuclear heterosexual family. There needs to be a recognition of different family types like multigenerational households, chosen families, non-heteronormative families etc
3. Not only Bajans but those who live here
survey:
53.9% strongly agree and 28% agree that persons fleeing from unsafe situations in their countries (can include human rights abuses, environmental disasters etc) should have the right to protection in Barbados.
Comments related to immigration and citizenship included:
“Barbados' discrimination against our Caribbean and Latin American neighbours especially when it comes to immigration and residency must end. We are all too willing to allow citizens from wealthy countries to flout our laws while we replicate their worst behavior when it comes to discrimination against those from countries we deem "lesser".”
“Diversity is a valuable resource”
“We should uphold equality with immigration laws and protect the rights of citizens and those married to citizens as well as the wider global community.”
“I recommend that the leaders of Barbados proceed with caution on this issue regardless of sexual orientation, because our system is already challenged with how to equitably take care of their own citizens, first”.
From stakeholder consultations:
It was felt that we as a marginalised community must highlight the fact that xenophobia is much too common in Barbados. We must also acknowledge that too many of us seek refuge elsewhere because they feel unable to live full lives in Barbados. Therefore, there is consensus that the constitution/charter should explicitly state that we will uphold the fundamental equality and human dignity of all within our jurisdiction (so inhabitants, Barbadians and residents).
Update: Barbados needs refugee legalisation
4. Rights of the Child
survey:
73.9% agree that current laws do not adequately protect LGBTQ+ children.
74.7% believe that anti-discrimination laws for children should include the sexual orientation and gender identity as categories.
94% agreed that LGBTQ+ children should be provided with protections from violence and bullying at home, in schools, on the internet, in sports and in public spaces.
94% said youth should have access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education.
Comments related to the rights of the child included:
“Right to assessments and fair academic accommodations for children with learning disabilities”
“Children didn't choose to be here, they should be protected at all costs”
“As a nation we have unfortunately normalize the harsh punishment for children more than we normalize and stride to protect them from discrimination especially on the grounds of their undecisive sexual orientation status.”
“I recommend that human children be recognized as human children based on their age category by law. I am not sure what an lgbtq+ child is.”
“Disabled children should have access to free primary, secondary and tertiary education like other children.”
“Juvenile laws should be diverse and specific and wholly intent on protecting children and not criminalising them.”
“I don't believe children should be raised by same sex couples at all.”
From stakeholder consultations:
There was concern that children were not explicitly mentioned. If we are to move away from “children must be seen and not heard”, they must be included in the Constitution/Charter. Children must have a voice regarding their wellbeing and their right to also participate in civic life must be acknowledged.
There was also a concern that if the rights of the child are to be mentioned, it should be made clear that LGBTQ+ children have the same rights as other children. There is also the issue of the assumption that LGBTQ+ children have been pressured or influenced. However, from our own experience as LGBTQ+ children and from our interactions with LGBTQ+ youth, children have agency and are well aware of who they are. This should be acknowledged and respected.
5. Environmental related duties and rights
survey:
81.7% considered environmental issues to be very important and 15.7% considered them to be important.
Comments related to the rights of the child included:
“While we as a nation recognize that we contribute little to the cause of climate change, we must mitigate its effects.”
“Right for services such as water and sanitation to be distributed equally without preference based on social class”
“Link to sustainable development and the incorporation of environmentally comprehensive laws that are pervasive throughout the state so as to make as much of an impact as possible.”
“Environmental Responsibility is what we need and not just rights.”
From stakeholder consultations:
It was agreed that there was not enough emphasis put on the fact that the environment should be protected whether or not there are direct and easily quantifiable benefits to us as human beings. We have a duty to do as little harm as possible and to preserve biodiversity.
The section on the environment needs to be fleshed out more and the focus should be expanded beyond anthropocentricity.
6. Gendered language
From stakeholder consultations:
All references to ‘brothers and sisters’ throughout the document should be replaced with gender-neutral language.
The reference to ‘fathers’ in the preamble is unnecessarily gendered as those categorised as women contributed, albeit more behind the scenes and uncredited work.
If ‘fathers’ is meant to refer to Errol Barrow and Grantley Adams specifically, this could be made explicit.
7. Lack of emphasis on other forms of oppression
This was not a consideration in the survey.
From stakeholder consultations:
Not just racial or socio-economic oppression
Oppression based on sexual orientation and gender identity through laws
No explicit recognition of the marginalization as a result of intersecting factors e.g., poor, undereducated, transgender women with disabilities has very specific vulnerabilities which are inextricably linked.
8. Laws of the land
This was not a consideration in the survey.
From stakeholder consultations:
There were strong feelings on this point. It is factually incorrect to state in the preamble that we are equal according to the laws of the land. There are laws which do not reflect the fact that we are equal. Furthermore, equality does not stem from the laws. It’s the other way around, the laws should reflect equality.
9. Use of the word ‘tolerance’
This was not a consideration in the survey.
From stakeholder consultations:
All individuals and organizations consulted felt very strongly about the use of ‘tolerance’. It was agreed that the term ‘inclusion’ should replace tolerance and accompany respect each time it is mentioned because in order to earn respect, one must be included. While it was understood that the primary definition of ‘tolerate’ has neutral to positive connotations, the secondary definition does not (see below).
We also must not minimise the effect that culture has on language. The LGBTQ+ community in Barbados is acutely aware of how a seemingly innocuous word like ‘tolerance’ has been used to its detriment. The word ‘tolerance’ is often used by a significant minority of persons to justify the status quo in Barbados in relation to the human rights of LGBTQ+ persons. For instance, ‘tolerance’ is often used when referring to the fact that the vast majority of our laws are not explicitly discriminatory. However, when the discriminatory effects of the laws are pointed out, the responses are to the effect that the absence of active discrimination means that there is tolerance. This trivialises but also justifies the unequal lived reality of LGBTQ+ persons in Barbados.
tolerate
Verb
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"
accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
"how was it that she could tolerate such noise?"
early 16th century (in the sense ‘endure pain’): from Latin tolerat- ‘endured’, from the verb tolerare.
10. The mention of ‘consumers’
This was not a consideration in the survey.
From stakeholder consultations:
It was felt that the section that mentions the Social Partnership and Social Justice Committee should make it clear that it is about protecting the interest of all Barbadians and those who live here, not just consumers.
11. Right and duty to participate in economic and social life
This was not a consideration in the survey.
From stakeholder consultations:
The general consensus was that if there is a duty to participate, there must be the corresponding right. This is of particular concern to the LGBTQ+ community because there are real and tangible impediments to full participation in the social and economic life of Barbados.
For example:
‘Not a Blood Type’ Research and Advocacy Project has found that 10% of LGBTQ+ Barbadians have been denied the opportunity to donate blood
The Nation Newspaper made light of the “corrective rape” of a person presumed to be a lesbian:
· Article https://redforgender.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/barbados-newspaper-describesrape- as-male-medicine/
· Apology https://www.nationnews.com/2016/05/25/we-apologise/
See Annex A Health Insurance application form q. 17 asking “Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?”
Alexa Hoffman, a transgender woman’s negative experience with authorities after being viciously attacked: https://barbados.loopnews.com/content/alexas-near-death-attack-wakecall
Homophobia in sports is not reported: https://barbadostoday.bb/2020/10/08/gay-bashingin-sport-present-but-neverreported/fbclid=IwAR2YLk60D rvxk3ru2kreeME7gWWTok9RUW1X2E7Pyztgb5P0zenWEGM0Z
In Barbados they are two registered LGBT+ organisations that are active. Butterfly Barbados which is a Trans lead and focused organisation and Equals Barbados which is a LGBTQ+ organisation.
