Dear Editor SIR,
I am so proud of Minister Kamina Johnson Smith and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for standing up to the United States, who seem to be flexing their diplomatic muscles to undermine Jamaican law and impose same sex “marriage” contrary to the will of the electorate. In a shocking admission, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller added fuel to the fire by stating that the United States has issues with how Jamaica treats same sex “marriage”; and the possibility that a homosexual diplomat may not be able to have his “husband” get diplomatic privileges is concerning to them. As weird as this apparently hypothetical preoccupation sounds, there is a document which governs the interactions between nation states as it relates to culture, values and laws; the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It is clear that the United States is in breach of at least three articles: 3.1.e, 9 and 41.
Flagrant Disregard for Diplomatic Protocols
Article 3.1.e states that the aim of the relationships should be to promote ” friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.” The US is showing hostility to our culture and values. Article 9 states that “The receiving State, (Jamaica), may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State,(The United States), that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.” In other words, the United States cannot coerce the acceptance of anyone, and Jamaica is not obligated to explain her decision to withhold acceptance. It also highlights the two acceptable options that the sending state has “In any such cases, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission.”
A central point of contention
Article 37, which applies specifically to diplomatic immunity being granted to family members of diplomatic staff, states that “The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.” It seems that at the core of the diplomatic row is the fact that a family according to the United States’ laws and culture and a family according to Jamaica’s laws and culture are two very different things. How does one reconcile such a situation? What guidance is there to navigate these cultural nuances? The Vienna Convention again comes to the fore as an independent arbiter, stating in Article 41 that “it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.” Again, the obligation is on the sending state to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state.
By attempting to send a diplomat that is in a same sex “marriage” and asking that his “husband” be recognised by the government, the United States of America is disrespecting the laws of the nation and interfering in the internal affairs of Jamaica in direct breach of this article. The reported retaliation by refusing visa extensions, amounts to nothing less than bullying. All this in the name of same sex marriage; something that did not even exist in the United States ten years ago; and the advent of which has led to a predictable acceleration of the deterioration of the social fabric of the United States. This is exemplified by the attempted promotion of radical gender ideology towards toddlers, the reign of hormone therapy, surge of sex change surgery and an over 4000% rise in gender dysphoria since the same sex marriage ruling in 2015.
The stance of Minister Kamina Johnson Smith, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and the Jamaican government against this global contagion and the decision that conforms to the views, laws and constitution of the Jamaican people, is worthy of highest commendation. It is a people who stand by their constitution who are worthy to be called nation states, those who go against their own constitution do not deserve such a title, but rather should be called colonies of foreign lands.
Dr. Daniel Thomas
Love March Movement