Dear Prime Minister Patterson:
Our recent report on how discrimination based on sexual orientation is impeding the fight against HIV/AIDS in Jamaica has provoked both threats and blanket denials from sectors of the government and police. We are writing to urge the Jamaican government to adopt a more constructive tenor in its response as it confronts the converging health and human rights crises.
As Human Rights Watch has documented in “Hated to Death: Homophobia, Violence, and Jamaica’s HIV/AIDS Epidemic,” discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation — coupled with discrimination and abuse against those living with HIV — present a growing and serious challenge to Jamaica. Together, they endanger both basic civil and political rights and vital public health efforts to reach those most at risk from the epidemic. In the report, Human Rights Watch presented detailed accounts of police harassment of gay men and HIV/AIDS outreach workers; of violence in communities and families carried out in a spirit of impunity; and of official indifference to human rights violations.
Five Jamaican human rights organizations supported the launch of the report on November 16 in Kingston, among them Families Against State Terrorism, the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights, Jamaica AIDS Support, Jamaicans for Justice, and the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG). For this courageous act they were accused by a representative of the Jamaica Police Federation of joining Human Rights Watch to “spread lies and deliberately malign and slander the police force and the government.” In its letter of November 25 published in the Jamaica Observer, the Federation was not content to defame these advocates and Human Rights Watch. It called for their arrest. It demanded that the government “slap on sedition charges where necessary to both foreign and local agents of provocation.”
In the days since Human Rights Watch released its report, a vigorous controversy has filled the Jamaican press and broadcast media. We welcome public debate over homophobic violence, HIV/AIDS, and human rights as an antidote to silence. However, we are deeply disappointed by the Police Federation’s threat against Jamaican organizations and activists for simply having spoken out against human rights violations and for having joined with Human Rights Watch to address this serious problem. It is incumbent on your government immediately to demonstrate its commitment to democratic freedoms by dissociating itself from this threat of prosecution and legal harassment of human rights activists. We call on you to affirm the freedoms of those activists and the importance of their work, and to condemn the Police Federation’s letter in public, clear, and unequivocal terms.
The call to penalize rights advocacy as “sedition” indicates that many police in Jamaica do not understand basic human rights protections. The Federation’s statement threatens the freedoms of association and expression, and targets human rights defenders, the indispensability of whose work has been affirmed by the U.N. General Assembly. (Indeed, the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders has called attention to the “special importance” of the work of “human rights groups and those who are active on issues of sexuality, especially sexual orientation.”)
The Police Federation’s statement also illustrates the attitudes towards sexual orientation, gender identity, and human rights that your government must reverse to meet the challenges of this crisis. The statement endorses homophobia as “good moral values.” It blames the victims and approves the agents of homophobic violence, stating that “the police cannot be held responsible for either the careless liaisons by homosexuals or the cultural responses of the population towards gays.” There could be no plainer confirmation of discriminatory attitudes within the police force.
In that light, and with the gravity of this crisis in mind, we will take this opportunity to respond to communications that have been made directly to Human Rights Watch by the Commissioner of Police and the director of Jamaica’s National AIDS Program.
Communication from the Commissioner of Police
On November 17, Commissioner of Police Francis Forbes hand-delivered a letter to Human Rights Watch, stating that “Consequent upon you making a public statement in this matter [about police treatment of people living with and at high risk of HIV/AIDS], it is the view of the High Command of the Jamaica Constabulary Force that the matter be investigated with utmost urgency. We are therefore requesting a written report, in addition to any other material/information which you consider to be helpful in this investigation. At the completion of our investigation, we will then invite you to participate in a face-to-face discussion on the matter at which time our investigators will be in attendance.”
We are grateful for the expressed intention of investigating allegations of abuse. However, Human Rights Watch placed materials to facilitate such an investigation in the hands of the Jamaican police months ago. The sincerity of the intention to investigate should be judged by the progress made with regard to these outstanding cases.
On July 12, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Minister of National Security Peter David Phillips, copied to Commissioner Forbes, expressing our concern about the police response to violence against gay men and men suspected of homosexual conduct, and calling attention in particular to three cases that occurred while our researchers were in Jamaica. (copy attached to this letter) We wrote that we were preparing a report on human rights abuses in Jamaica against people living with and at high risk of HIV, including abuses based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and HIV status. We urged that the cases we mentioned be thoroughly investigated, and asked that we be informed of the progress of any investigations. We received no reply.
We will therefore reiterate in brief the substance of these three cases, and ask again that the Ministry of National Security inform both us and the public about the results of its investigations.
- On June 9, Brian Williamson, a prominent gay rights activist, was brutally murdered in his home. According to first-hand testimony to Human Rights Watch, the police conducted an inadequate investigation of the crime scene, leaving behind two possible murder weapons stained with blood. A suspect was later detained, and an identity parade held at Half Way Tree police station. Human Rights Watch has received credible reports that the individuals in the parade were presented with towels on their head and white cream (apparently toothpaste) on their faces, making them virtually unrecognizable. In addition to apparently abetting a possible suspect evade accountability, police have consistently refused to consider even the possibility of a homophobic motive for the killing, and have made statements, unsupported by any evidence, suggesting that the gay community bears responsibility for the crime. The senior superintendent at the Half Way Tree police station, with ultimate responsibility for the investigation, told Human Rights Watch that “most of the violence against homosexuals is internal. We never have cases of gay men being beaten up [by heterosexuals].”
- On Friday June 18, Victor Jarrett was chopped, stabbed and stoned to death by a mob of Montego Bay residents. Human Rights Watch has received several reports from eyewitnesses that two male and one female police officers participated in this incident, and that the male officers beat the man with batons and urged others to beat the man because he was a homosexual — contributing to his eventual murder.
- Human Rights Watch has received reports that on June 24, six men were driven from their home and beaten by a group of armed men, and that the alleged assailants included a well-known dancehall musician, Buju Banton (Mark Anthony Myrie). This attack apparently was motivated by hatred of gay men: the victims reported that both before and during the attack the assailants had called the men “battymen” (homosexuals). A Human Rights Watch researcher present at the Constant Spring police station on June 25 when victims of this crime reported the incident observed that several of the police officers — including some who took statements from the men who had been attacked — laughed when the men reported what had happened to them and made derisive comments about the victims and about gay men. Human Rights Watch remains concerned that the case and the men’s allegations are not being adequately investigated.
In a meeting with Human Rights Watch representatives on November 17, including the researcher present at the police station on June 25, ACP George Williams insisted that the police had conducted themselves properly, directly discounting our researcher’s eyewitness account of officers laughing at victims of a homophobic assault and making derisive comments about them and gay men generally. The same officer dismissed claims of police abuse as “mischievous.” We remain concerned that internal mechanisms for investigating allegations of police misconduct are inadequate. ACP Williams’ comments can only reinforce the widespread fear that police infrequently give such charges a fair hearing. We await the outcome of investigations of the above cases. We also renew our call for an independent body charged with the necessary powers and resources to fully investigate allegations of human rights abuses by law enforcement officials.
Communication from the National AIDS Program
In a November 22 letter to Human Rights Watch, also released to the Jamaican press, Dr. Yitades Gebre criticized Human Rights Watch’s report as “exaggerated, misleading, and unacceptable,” dismissing its first-hand accounts as “attack[ing] the integrity of hard working health workers with undocumented allegations and unfounded testimonials and hearsay.”
Dr. Gebre’s letter itself mischaracterizes Human Rights Watch’s report, which acknowledged improvements in health care provided to people living with HIV/AIDS. Recognizing progress, however, does not mitigate the responsibility to remedy persisting problems. Our research shows that problems continue and are severe. We are disturbed that Dr. Gebre responded to our evidence with a defensive determination to deny, rather than a commitment to investigate and address continuing shortcomings objectively.
Dr. Gebre’s letter appropriately cites programs and policies that Human Rights Watch has acknowledged are in place, including training for health workers and mechanisms within the Ministry of Health to redress breaches of patient rights. It also points to draft policy documents that he states are in their final stages. These plans and programs are important, but they also must be implemented. And to ensure their implementation and success, they require the kind of independent oversight that Dr. Gebre’s comments so evidently reject.
In particular, Dr. Gebre rejects Human Rights Watch’s call for an independent oversight and complaint mechanism to ensure proper implementation of health policies and norms relating to HIV/AIDS, including protection of confidential and private information. Dr. Gebre claims that this recommendation “undermine[s] national development.”
Such a response flies against all international and professional standards. Policies on medical confidentiality are meaningless unless they are understood and enforced, and our research suggests neither occurs. That is hardly surprising, because training in such issues for medical personnel in Jamaica is optional. The U.N. Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights specifically recommend that “an independent agency should be established to redress breaches of confidentiality.” (Guideline 30(c)). In particular, no independent agency exists in Jamaica to redress breaches of confidentiality by health workers, such as porters and ward assistants, who have access to patient dockets and may otherwise discover patients’ HIV status.
Dr. Gebre’s assertion that “Jamaican health services do not tolerate any kind of abuse, mistreatment and unprofessional conduct against its clients” simply ignores Human Rights Watch’s evidence. It also ignores the reports of other organizations working with the Ministry of Health. For instance, an October 2003 report, “HIV/AIDS Risk Mapping Study of Men Who Have Sex with Men in Jamaica,” prepared for the National HIV/AIDS Program, found that men who have sex with men in the study reported “a litany of transgressions from organisations, caretakers and social institutions that were supposed to protect them. Verbal and physical abuse from the police, the outside community and by their own men is a concern.” A May 2004 report by a workshop conducted by the Johns Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (JHPIEGO) with oversight by the National HIV/AIDS Program included several patient reports of disclosure of confidential information and discriminatory treatment by health workers.
Dr. Gebre accuses Human Rights Watch of disseminating inaccurate information about the level of knowledge among Jamaicans regarding HIV transmission and effective prevention methods. Yet evidence that a majority of the population has substantial knowledge about HIV does not detract from the serious consequences of misinformation even among a minority. If only one in five Jamaicans operates under grave misapprehensions about HIV transmission, public health would still be better served by educating the uninformed expeditiously than by self-congratulation. Indeed, the Ministry of Health’s 2002-2006 HIV/AIDS national strategy document contradicts Dr. Gebre’s optimistic estimation, stating that “In Jamaica, stigma, fear and denial create ideal conditions for the epidemic to flourish. Many issues are not addressed due to the misperception of the nature of the disease and the association with homosexual behaviours. Due to these factors, persons tend to be reluctant to take necessary precautions to avoid the disease, test for the presence of the virus and admit that they have the disease.”
Finally, Dr. Gebre ignores reality in urging victims of discrimination in the health care system to “formally complete the appropriate documentation and/or speak with the appropriate officer in the hospital or health care centre immediately after the incident has occurred and/or within ten (10) days.” People who pursue an internal complaint mechanism may further publicize their HIV serostatus or sexual orientation, making them vulnerable to further discrimination. It is thus unsurprising that the Ministry of Health has received few complaints from patients. Similarly, Dr. Gebre wishfully claims that “There has been no single incident of police violence, threats or harassment against HIV/AIDS educators” presented to the National AIDS Program. Human Rights Watch, however, has now presented accounts of precisely such incidents. They can be confirmed through consultation with Jamaica AIDS Support. We encourage the National AIDS Program to investigate those cases 151; and to cease denying the necessity of doing so.
The urgency of these matters is shown by recent statistics, disclosed by Dr. Gebre on November 25, that there was a twelve percent increase in reported new AIDS cases in the first six months of 2004, as compared to the same period in 2003.
Conclusion
Representatives of your government, responding to Human Rights Watch’s documentation, have repeatedly cited Jamaica’s “sovereignty” as a reason to oppose the repeal of sodomy laws (laws initially imposed by a colonial authority, not a sovereign Jamaica) and to dismiss the report’s other recommendations.
Sovereignty is not at issue here. Legally binding obligations are. Jamaica has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant affirms the equality of all people before the law and condemns all forms of discrimination. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has held both sexual orientation and HIV status to be protected against discrimination by the treaty’s provisions. It has also held that sodomy laws such as Jamaica’s violate the treaty’s protections for privacy and equality.
During the past two weeks in which your government assailed Human Rights Watch’s findings, the health minister of Guyana has outlined proposed legal reforms which would include the decriminalization of homosexual conduct as part of its overall effort to combat HIV/AIDS. The government of the Bahamas has announced plans to amend its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. A meeting of eighteen Caribbean health and labor ministers joined by health professionals in St. Kitts and Nevis placed homophobia as a central element on the agenda of issues in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
Human Rights Watch does not call on Jamaica to breach its cultural values. Violence, police abuse, and arbitrary killings are not cultural values. They are human rights violations. Nor do we call on Jamaica to abrogate its sovereignty. We call on it to live up to the obligations that it voluntarily assumed under the human rights treaties that it has ratified. Human Rights Watch urges Jamaica to join the roster of progressive and democratic countries that have extended basic protections to include sexual orientation and have recognized that an effective policy against HIV/AIDS must be predicated not on prejudice but on inclusion. Effort would be better spent in positive initiatives, such as independent bodies to confidentially investigate abuses by police or health workers, than on recriminations against those who bear the bad news.
We look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
/s/
Rebecca Schleifer
Researcher, HIV/AIDS and Human Rights Program
/s/
Scott Long
Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program
Cc: Dr. Hon. Peter David Phillips, Minister of National Security
Cc: Hon. John Junor, Minister of Health
Cc: Francis Forbes, Commissioner of Police
