Colonialism 3

Strict Dictates. The argument usually raised by those commentators in demonstrating how out of touch the British are with our West Indian societies is their recent imposition on Anguilla of the legalization of homosexuality. So, what is homosexuality? Homosexuality is the natural inclination to be sexually aroused by a member of the same sex. It is a sexual preference. It is not an act as such. Nor is it a state of morality. It is a state of being, a state of nature. It is a minority state for sure. A significant proportion of all Anguillian men are homosexual, as is a significant proportion of Anguillian women. It is a state that is so natural that similar numbers of butterflies, dogs and cows share it. If you don’t believe me, research it for yourself.

Those who framed the topic of the British imposition of homosexuality on us in Anguilla were caught in an illogical trap of their own making. First, unlike in Britain, homosexuality has never been illegal in Anguilla. The UK created a specific crime of indecent acts between consenting adults of the same gender in private. That was the outlawing of homosexual acts. Anguilla never had this law. What we did have was the mid-nineteenth century offence of buggery. Buggery is not a specifically homosexual act. Nor is it necessarily the preferred act of affection between homosexuals. But, the British were determined to remove the offence of buggery from our statute books. The result was that some of us accused them of trying to force homosexuality on us. Nothing of the sort was happening.

The British government saw themselves at risk from Anguilla maintaining the offence of buggery. They were worried about their “contingent liability”. What does that mean? They were concerned that one day our police would pick up a rich male tourist and his boyfriend, and prosecute them. The possibility was that the rich homosexual would sue the local government for breach of his human right to be treated equally in his sexual orientation. Yes, whether or not we like it, that is a basic human right internationally recognised. The Anguilla high court would throw the human rights case out, as buggery was a valid offence on our books. The homosexual would bring his case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that Britain had an international obligation to force its overseas territories to modernize their laws to bring them into line with worldwide modern attitudes of fairness and unprejudiced behaviour. Britain would lose that case. It would have to pay out millions, all because Anguilla maintained an offence on the books that had been created in the time of Queen Victoria. The FCO boys asked our Chief Minister to bring up in our Houses of Assembly the issue of the need to modernize our laws on buggery. Our Chief Minister was horrified. He was too embarrassed to discuss the topic in his own homophobic society. It was our Chief Minister who begged the FCO to change the law by an Order in Council. He was not alone. All the other Chief Ministers made the same request. The British have repeatedly said that their preference is to have fundamental change in the law effected by a local Act. They are very reluctant to use an Order in Council, as it smacks of old-time colonialism. However, as we begged for it . . .

We cannot allow ourselves to get side tracked when it comes to our Constitution. We have to be ready with our arguments when the British team arrives in Anguilla in July. The 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission sets out the views and wishes of the majority of Anguillians who have expressed a view on the constitutional issues raised. Do we understand the issues? Are we ready to put forward our best team of negotiators to get the maximum improvement in our democratic institutions? Are we arming ourselves with the necessary arguments to convince them that we are ready for constitutional advance? Or, will we just tell them to go ahead and do what they want, as we have done before?