SCALES OF JUSTICE: Philadelphia
by anthony sylvestre:
Written May 25th, 2013
In the most powerful country on earth, there is a city called
Philadelphia. It is in the state of Pennsylvania, one of the original
thirteen states of the United States.
Philadelphia is a city renowned for the statute of Ben Franklin, the
Liberty Bell and Independence Hall (not the one here on Queen Street).
Its motto is “Let brotherly love endure.” It is also known as the
“birthplace of America” as during the American Revolution, it served as
an instrumental role as a meeting place for the Founding Fathers of the
USA; and it was there that the Declaration of Independence was signed.
The city then, is regaled for its historic contours of liberty,
freedom, and emancipation of the USA from Britain. It is therefore
metaphorically referred to as the “cradle of liberty”.
Twenty years ago there was the release of a sensational movie called
(you guessed it!) “Philadelphia”. The movie starred Tom Hanks and Denzel
Washington. Hanks played the role of a prominent attorney who is
homosexual. He also contracted HIV which later developed into AIDS. On
the day Hanks is assigned the law firm’s biggest client, one of his
bosses noticed a lesion on his forehead and he is told to look into it.
Hanks stays at home a few days to try to conceal the legion and works
at home. He completes the work on the case just in time for it to be
filed with the court on the last day and sends it to the office. But the
documents are misplaced at the office and Hanks in the meantime suffers
from bowel spasm at home and is rushed to the hospital. There, he
receives multiple calls from his office about this important case for
the law firm. In the end the documents are found in time to be filed
with the court. The law firm, a couple days later, fires Hanks. They
give the reason for his dismissal as incompetence, but Hanks knows that
it is because of his sexual orientation and the fact that his illness
was now becoming visible.
Hanks decides to sue his former employers for discrimination but no
lawyer wants to take his case: a combination of homophobia and
reluctance to take on the big law firm that Hanks previously worked
with. Denzel, at first as well, refuses to take Hanks’ case as he
himself is homophobic. But, he eventually takes the case for Hanks and
in the end is able to establish in court that Hanks was dismissed
because of suspicion of his sexual orientation and because of his
illness.
Some weeks back, the issues of homosexuality, privacy, religion and
discrimination came to a head the Supreme Court of Belize. And unless
you have been living under a rock, you certainly would have been abreast
of the constitutional challenge of my primary school and high school
colleague Caleb Orozco. Indeed, over half the population of Belize (over
220,000 people) weighed in on the topic on channel5’s internet poll.
With this case, it seems to me that Belize is being pursued as the
English Speaking Caribbean “Philadelphia” of the third millennium; that
is to say, a place which is the symbol of liberty and freedom; the
trendsetter, well at least in relation to the issue of sexual
orientation.
Indeed, the case has been conceded to be a test case- a case which,
if successful, will be a precedent to be used in the other territories.
Lord Goldsmith, former Attorney General of the United Kingdom under
Tony Blair and one of the eminent attorneys who shouldered Caleb
Orozco’s case, explained it this way:
“In all cases, we trace questions like this. It will be looked at
in different parts of the world, to study and to see what the
experience in Belize is and to draw from the decision of what the judge
will make.”
Outspoken church goers have expressed the motive behind the case as being more sinister.
They claim that the case is being used to push a “gay” agenda
throughout the Caribbean. They say that Caleb and UNIBAM are asking the
wrong arm of government to implement their agenda. It is the legislators
they should lobby, they say, not the courts, for no constitutional
right of Caleb is being infringed by Belize’s sodomy laws.
Louis Wade, one of the more strident critics of Caleb and UNIBAM expressed it this way:
“As you continue to listen to the case – I’m going to ask the
media and the representatives who have been allowed into the court room
to ask yourself the simple question based upon the arguments that the
attorneys are giving. Whether or not this situation should be in the
court or it should be in parliament?
But those of us who went to primary school and high school with Caleb
can attest to the incessant taunting, teasing, bullying and ridiculing
that he was subjected to. Indeed such treatment is demeaning and
dehumanizing and is inconsistent with the values of our democratic
society and a person’s basic human rights.
But I see the point of Louis Wade and others of like mind- this
intolerance that persists against those of homosexual proclivities do
not stem from Belize’s sodomy laws. It stems from people’s belief
systems. So, they question whether the court should be used as the
catalyst to create the change in the norm sought by UNIBAM.
Court cases which serve as precedent inevitably are catalyst for
changes in societal norms. Famous cases like the United States Supreme
court case Brown v Board of Education are precedent setting cases which
are catalysts for change in societal norms at the time. In the case of
Brown, the United States Supreme Court held that state laws establishing
separate public schools for blacks and white (racial segregation) was
unconstitutional. The system in place at the time in fact perpetuated
racial discrimination- the schools for blacks were inferior to those of
whites.
In my view, the case brought by Caleb Orozco seeks to achieve this
result; that is, act as a catalyst to change societal norms regarding
sexuality in Belize. Whilst my personal opinions differ from that of
Caleb and UNIBAM on the constitutionality of Belize’s sodomy law, I am
an advocate for his right to bring the matter to court.
Justice is not reserved for the majority. For as a famous judge said,
“[it] is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the
scrutiny and respectful … comments of ordinary men.”
It will be interesting to see where the scales of justice fall and
what the judge rules in this case and whether Belize indeed becomes the
Philadelphia of the Caribbean in the third millennium.
http://www.belizetimes.bz/2013/05/25/scales-of-justice-philadelphia/
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 