TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
alfa wrote:Thank God all this LGBTXYZ sensitivity nonsense has not reached in the board schools and hopefully never will. I don't care what two non binary, trans pansexual, gluten free whatever do in the privacy of their own bedroom but when they try to indoctrinate the nations kids with their radical leftist approach is where i have an issue. And btw board schools do the best in the country so whatever path they are on is working as much as it may trigger the leftists
https://youtu.be/6H0GsgEVJTY
Tell me why we shouldn't be worried about our kids again
alfa wrote:Thank God all this LGBTXYZ sensitivity nonsense has not reached in the board schools and hopefully never will. I don't care what two non binary, trans pansexual, gluten free whatever do in the privacy of their own bedroom but when they try to indoctrinate the nations kids with their radical leftist approach is where i have an issue. And btw board schools do the best in the country so whatever path they are on is working as much as it may trigger the leftists
https://youtu.be/6H0GsgEVJTY
Tell me why we shouldn't be worried about our kids again
j.o.e wrote:alfa wrote:Thank God all this LGBTXYZ sensitivity nonsense has not reached in the board schools and hopefully never will. I don't care what two non binary, trans pansexual, gluten free whatever do in the privacy of their own bedroom but when they try to indoctrinate the nations kids with their radical leftist approach is where i have an issue. And btw board schools do the best in the country so whatever path they are on is working as much as it may trigger the leftists
https://youtu.be/6H0GsgEVJTY
Tell me why we shouldn't be worried about our kids again
It will reach the board schools eventually. Board schools have less and less input from religious individuals at the senior level and the corporations of T&T who sponsor and partner with these schools have embraced the alphabet, within 10 years the kids of alphabet sympathizers will be old enough to attend school en masse. It will change
88sins wrote:alfa wrote:Thank God all this LGBTXYZ sensitivity nonsense has not reached in the board schools and hopefully never will. I don't care what two non binary, trans pansexual, gluten free whatever do in the privacy of their own bedroom but when they try to indoctrinate the nations kids with their radical leftist approach is where i have an issue. And btw board schools do the best in the country so whatever path they are on is working as much as it may trigger the leftists
https://youtu.be/6H0GsgEVJTY
Tell me why we shouldn't be worried about our kids again
can someone please for the love of all that is good and holy explain to why the ass these ppl hadda involve my boy kermit in they bs.
d man gone have a hard enough struggle as is with a Ms.Piggy. now what? they find inter-species relations is not enough?
The_Honourable wrote:j.o.e wrote:alfa wrote:Thank God all this LGBTXYZ sensitivity nonsense has not reached in the board schools and hopefully never will. I don't care what two non binary, trans pansexual, gluten free whatever do in the privacy of their own bedroom but when they try to indoctrinate the nations kids with their radical leftist approach is where i have an issue. And btw board schools do the best in the country so whatever path they are on is working as much as it may trigger the leftists
https://youtu.be/6H0GsgEVJTY
Tell me why we shouldn't be worried about our kids again
It will reach the board schools eventually. Board schools have less and less input from religious individuals at the senior level and the corporations of T&T who sponsor and partner with these schools have embraced the alphabet, within 10 years the kids of alphabet sympathizers will be old enough to attend school en masse. It will change
True, and even if it doesn't reach the board schools, they will use politicians plus the court system to target the said schools, Ministry of Education and to stop the funding of board schools. Resistance will be chipped away across time until they get their way.
We are going to see a parent challenging a school soon over some lgbt issue which will set a precedent. It's coming.
Les Bain wrote:Wondering if LGBT should feel comfortable as Roe Vs Wade got overturned? A lot of religious people are celebrating that win, over something that is at heart a straight people thing.
So if an unwanted consequence of straight sex had the fairytale believers incensed for decades, what about "unnatural sex among deviants in god eyes?"
Thomas called for the "reconsideration" of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception (lol how dare they tell a straight married couple what to do in their own bedroom lol lol lol);
Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships;
and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.
Probably not. Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barret, and Gorsuch are literalists. Each has written opinion criticisizing the peculiarly American reliance on stare decisis to provide major recent legal framework instead of the the legislative branch creating, and modifying, laws that meet their intents.maj. tom wrote:Thomas called for the "reconsideration" of Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to use contraception (lol how dare they tell a straight married couple what to do in their own bedroom lol lol lol);
Lawrence v. Texas, which protects the right to same-sex romantic relationships;
and Obergefell v. Hodges, which establishes the right to same-sex marriage.
We are watching the splitting and fall of a vast empire in our live feeds, and the preludes to Civil War 2.
timelapse wrote:Nobody gaf about lgbt rights or wrongs right now.The country sinking literally and economically,polically,all kinds of ways.
This sheit is a distraction from the real issues at hand.
Nobody cares who booling you Jason.Nobody
Dizzy28 wrote:You do realise tax payers money going to jump out to pay KCs.
Whether you care or not you payingtimelapse wrote:Nobody gaf about lgbt rights or wrongs right now.The country sinking literally and economically,polically,all kinds of ways.
This sheit is a distraction from the real issues at hand.
Nobody cares who booling you Jason.Nobody
PNM esque distractionDizzy28 wrote:You do realise tax payers money going to jump out to pay KCs.
Whether you care or not you payingtimelapse wrote:Nobody gaf about lgbt rights or wrongs right now.The country sinking literally and economically,polically,all kinds of ways.
This sheit is a distraction from the real issues at hand.
Nobody cares who booling you Jason.Nobody
The Court of Appeal has reduced penalties for acts of buggery (anal sexual intercourse) and other acts of serious indecency, while at the same time maintaining their criminal status.
In a majority ruling, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton upheld an appeal by the Attorney General against a ruling by the High Court which deemed portions of local sexual offences law to be unconstitutional because they criminalised sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex. Justice Vashiest Kokaram dissented.
The 196-page decision was handed down on March 25.
In April 2018, Justice Devindra Rampersad struck down TT’s colonial-era laws in favour of Trinidadian LGBTQIA+ activist Jason Jones who filed a constitutional claim in 2017.
Rampersad had modified sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalised buggery and serious indecency between consenting adults, declaring them unconstitutional.
This means that private consensual sex acts between adults, including same-sex intimacy, are no longer criminalised under this section.
However, the court reinstated section 61 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1925) in place of previously repealed provisions, maintaining legal prohibitions against acts of gross indecency with a penalty of up to two years of imprisonment.
Additionally, protections for minors remain intact.
The court upheld section 16(1) and 16(2)(c) as applicable to individuals covered under section 20 of the Children Act.
In their ruling, the judges said it was Parliament’s responsibility to decide if buggery and gross indecency should be fully decriminalised.
"Judges cannot change the law. We give effect to Parliament’s intention. Buggery remains a crime in Trinidad and Tobago pursuant to section 13 of the Act, but is now punishable by a term of imprisonment of five years," the ruling stated.
“It is, therefore, left to Parliament to repeal the criminalisation of buggery and the related offence of gross indecency by legislation. It is an emotive issue which engages vibrant discussion in the court of public opinion.
“Parliament is ultimately responsible for ensuring that laws reflect the evolving standards of a democratic society. That is their role and function. Any provisions found to be unconstitutional must be taken from the statute books by Parliament through legislative reform and not by judicial overreach,” Pemberton said.
“In my judgment the clear intention here is for the existing law to continue to prevail. Buggery remains a crime in Trinidad and Tobago,” Bereaux said.
Pemberton, in agreeing with Bereaux’s reasoning, focused on the structural and constitutional interpretation of whether sections 13 and 16 qualified as "saved law."
In his lawsuit, Jones had asked the court to determine whether the State had the constitutional authority to criminalise same-sex intimacy.
Rampersad’s modification of the sections introduced the element of consent, as section 13 outlawed anal intercourse between two men, and a man and woman. At the time, he said it was a “non-intrusive” option.
Speaking on the issue, Jones questioned the retention of the laws.
In modifying the law, the Appeals Court judges reduced the penalty for buggery from 25 years to five years imprisonment while ruling that buggery remains a criminal offence under section 13.
"Regardless of the savings-law clauses and the Constitution, we are talking about the rights of some 100,000 LGBTQIA+ citizens in TT. Why are we spending all this money and retaining these laws?”
“The modernisation of our democracy is at stake here and this is the beginning of this modernisation.”
Fyard Hosein, SC, Keisha Prosper and Vincent Jardine represented the Attorney General.
Richard Drabble KC, Rishi Dass, SC, and Marina Narinesingh represented Jones.
The Equal Opportunity Commission had a listening brief as the first interested party while former attorney general John Jeremie, SC, represented the Council of Evangelical Churches.
They also modified certain provisions of section 16 of the Act, which criminalised acts of "serious indecency," and disapplied section 16(1) and 16(2)(a) and (b) for consenting adults, whether in a heterosexual or same-sex relationship.
LGBTQ+ activist Jason Jones has vowed to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the criminal status of buggery and serious indecency while reducing penalties for the offences.
Jones expressed his disappointment with the March 25 ruling, calling it “regressive” and a setback for LGBTQ+ rights in TT.
“As an LGBTQ+ citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, this regressive judgment has ripped up my contract as a citizen of T&T and again makes me an unapprehended criminal in the eyes of the law,” Jones said in a statement.
He criticised the judges’ reliance on the "savings clause" in the Constitution, arguing that it perpetuates colonial-era laws that discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals.
"The savings clause has no place in a 21st-century democracy, and the Government and our Parliament are derelict in their duties by not removing it so many years after we became a Republic in 1976," he said.
Jones said he intends to take the case to the Privy Council.
“The TT Court of Appeal has effectively put a target on the back of LGBTQIA + people and made us lower-class citizens in our own country.
“Let me be clear, for our Appeal Court judges to overturn one of the most progressive human rights judgments in recent history is nothing short of diabolical.”
He praised Justice Devindra Rampersad’s initial ruling on his constitutional challenge in 2918, calling it “groundbreaking.”
The Court of Appeal’s majority decision was delivered in a 196-page ruling.
Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and Charmaine Pemberton upheld an appeal by the Attorney General, maintaining the criminalisation of buggery while reducing its penalty from 25 years to five years of imprisonment. Justice Vashiest Kokaram dissented.
The ruling also modified provisions of the act concerning "serious indecency," effectively decriminalising consensual acts between adults, including same-sex intimacy, under those provisions. However, the judges reinstated Section 61 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1925), preserving legal prohibitions against acts of gross indecency, punishable by up to two years in prison.
The judges stated that it was Parliament’s responsibility to decide whether buggery and gross indecency should be fully decriminalised, rather than a matter for judicial intervention.
"Judges cannot change the law. We give effect to Parliament’s intention," the ruling stated. "It is, therefore, left to Parliament to repeal the criminalisation of buggery and the related offence of gross indecency by legislation."
Bereaux said buggery remains a crime under Section 13, while Pemberton noted that legal reforms should come through Parliament.
Jones, who originally challenged the laws in 2017, remains determined to see them struck down.
“These laws are inhumane and single out my community for hatred and derision. They will go!” he declared.
He pointed to similar legal victories worldwide, including the decriminalisation of homosexuality in India, where Justice Rampersad’s 2018 ruling had been cited as a precedent.
“The modernisation of our democracy is at stake here, and this is the beginning of this modernisation,” he stated.
Fyard Hosein, SC, Keisha Prosper and Vincent Jardine represented the Attorney General. Richard Drabble KC, Rishi Dass, SC, and Marina Narinesingh represented Jones.
The Equal Opportunity Commission had a listening brief. John Jeremie, SC, represented the Council of Evangelical Churches, an interested party in the appeal.
Dizzy28 wrote:I'm sure the various news articles on Facebook on this subject are filled with responsible comments utilizing knowledge of law and the appeals process!!!
timelapse wrote:Hard luck dey culomongers
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests
