It turns out that the people of T&T are much more progressive in their attitudes towards the gay community than might otherwise have been thought.A recent survey commissioned by UNAids to examine public attitudes on gender equality, sexual and reproductive health, and discrimination reports the quite startling statistic that 78 per cent of those surveyed felt that people should not be treated differently because of their sexual orientation.
This is consistent with the finding that 43 per cent of the population can be considered to be tolerant of members of the gay community, while 19 per cent were to be considered "accepting."A minority of 32 per cent were properly to be categorised as "homophobic." It is also consistent with the 56 per cent who thought that a person should not be prevented from entering T&T because he is a homosexual, as against 25 per cent who believed that such a prohibition was quite proper.
More problematic, but nevertheless encouraging, is the finding that 48 per cent of the sample thought that criminalisation of same-sex sexual relations should be maintained, while 15 per cent were in favour of decriminalisation, and 37 per cent either were not aware of the law or were not sure or preferred not to say how they felt.
At the same time, however, 49 per cent of respondents did not think that men should be penalised for having sex with each other in private, and 40 per cent thought that they should. There is probably greater tolerance of women having sex with each other in private, with only 36 per cent favouring the imposition of penalties, and 52 per cent registering opposition.
So it would seem that about one sixth of those who preferred the law to stay as is nevertheless, did not think that gay men should suffer a penalty for breaching the law. And practically all of those who were non-committal on the question of decriminalisation, set their faces against a criminal penalty for a man having sex with another man, when asked the question in a different way.
As ambivalent as the people of T&T might appear in relation to the decriminalisation of buggery, Jamaicans have shown themselves to be much more resolute in their homophobia.
According to a recent survey, 91 per cent of Jamaicans believe that the law prohibiting same-sex sexual activity should not be touched, and 68 per cent thought that gays should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. But then Jamaica is the land which produced those delightful dancehall ditties calling upon Jamaicans to "bun dem chi chi man" and to "boom bye bye inna batty bwoy head."
The level of relative tolerance in T&T is also remarkable given that the same UNAids survey reveals that 50 per cent of respondents think that homosexuality is either a result of choice or caused by a lack of or poor moral or religious grounding or bad parenting. Only 12 per cent believe that people are "born gay."
Not surprisingly, women have been shown to be less homophobic than men, and the older (those above 50) more homophobic than the young. Young people are growing up in a world, in the West at least, where gay marriage is fast becoming universally acceptable and the portrayal of gay relationships on television is commonplace.
But then again, the survey also revealed that the main source of attitudes towards sexuality is religion, suggesting that future generations will continue to struggle with sexual orientation. In that regard, it is heartening that the Network of Faith Based Organisations, in response to the UNAids survey, has taken a stand against discrimination against anyone, for any reason.
What are the policy implications of all of this?
In the year 2000, the Equal Opportunity Act was passed prohibiting discrimination in employment, education, and the provision of goods and services and accommodation on the grounds of sex, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, marital status and disability.
Discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation was not prohibited and, in fact, to make assurance doubly sure, the legislators made a point of blandishing their heterosexual credentials by defining the term "sex" as not including sexual orientation, just in case an activist judiciary might be tempted to say otherwise.
So the result is that, despite a concerted effort to root out discrimination, it is lawful to deny someone employment, a place in a school, insurance, and an apartment because he or she happens to love someone of the same sex.
Fast-forward to 2013. The Ramadhar Constitution Commission grappled with the problem but in the face of what it described as "conflicting views" as to whether sexual orientation should be included in the Constitution as a ground for discrimination, the commissioners concluded that the subject required further national discussion and public education.Talk about passing the buck.
Well, there is now a clear indication of consensus among the population that it is simply not fair to deny people the basic amenities of life because of their sexual orientation, whether that orientation is natural or adopted.So let's get it over with, amend the law and cement our reputation as a nation characterised by diversity, creativity and, most of all, tolerance.