Dear Editor,
An examination of both the Child Care and Protection, and the Sexual Offences acts raises important legal questions regarding the sex education programme implemented by Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) in six privately managed children's homes.
Part IV, section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act makes it an offence for: "inviting, counselling or inciting a child to touch directly or indirectly with a part of the body, or with an object, the body of (i) any person; (ii) child." A person who commits an offence under this subsection of the act is liable on conviction in a Circuit Court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Sex education is nothing new to Jamaica. I was exposed to sex education in high school in first form at age 10 (Common Entrance era). The material presented then was taught in a comprehensive manner under the Personal Development Course.
The programme we were introduced to included the different types of contraceptives but the presenter at no time suggested to 10 - 12 year olds that having sex was a right and it should be discussed with their partner.
The training programme done by JFJ was aimed at 12-17-year-olds. Both the content and tone of the manual seem to have been way too advanced for the children in these homes. We also need to bear in mind that a significant number of the children in these homes were themselves subjected to sexual abuse, hence, the need to be extra cautious when delivering courses of this nature.
A 12-year-old is naturally curious and given to experimentation. Is there anything wrong in telling a 12-year-old that it is not beneficial to be engaging in sex? Some weeks ago we were told by the minister of youth and culture that sexual predatory behaviour was evident in some of the children's homes. The minister went as far as to assert that the closure of the residency programme of a particular children's home was due in part to the sexual predatory behaviour of some of the older boys on younger boys.
One wonders if this behaviour was not influenced by the type of information being provided to the children; some behaviours are learnt.
Jamaicans are therefore very supportive of the move by Minister Hanna to submit the manuals used by JFJ in the children's homes to the attorney general. We call upon JFJ to be proactive and transparent in this matter by ensuring that Minister Hanna receives all the material that was used in the eight-month training programme so that an in-depth investigation can be done.
We await the findings of the attorney general as to whether or not any legal recourse can be taken against JFJ for introducing this age-inappropriate material in the children's homes.
Marsha Thomas
JFJ should provide all material for probe
-->
An examination of both the Child Care and Protection, and the Sexual Offences acts raises important legal questions regarding the sex education programme implemented by Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) in six privately managed children's homes.
Part IV, section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act makes it an offence for: "inviting, counselling or inciting a child to touch directly or indirectly with a part of the body, or with an object, the body of (i) any person; (ii) child." A person who commits an offence under this subsection of the act is liable on conviction in a Circuit Court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Sex education is nothing new to Jamaica. I was exposed to sex education in high school in first form at age 10 (Common Entrance era). The material presented then was taught in a comprehensive manner under the Personal Development Course.
The programme we were introduced to included the different types of contraceptives but the presenter at no time suggested to 10 - 12 year olds that having sex was a right and it should be discussed with their partner.
The training programme done by JFJ was aimed at 12-17-year-olds. Both the content and tone of the manual seem to have been way too advanced for the children in these homes. We also need to bear in mind that a significant number of the children in these homes were themselves subjected to sexual abuse, hence, the need to be extra cautious when delivering courses of this nature.
A 12-year-old is naturally curious and given to experimentation. Is there anything wrong in telling a 12-year-old that it is not beneficial to be engaging in sex? Some weeks ago we were told by the minister of youth and culture that sexual predatory behaviour was evident in some of the children's homes. The minister went as far as to assert that the closure of the residency programme of a particular children's home was due in part to the sexual predatory behaviour of some of the older boys on younger boys.
One wonders if this behaviour was not influenced by the type of information being provided to the children; some behaviours are learnt.
Jamaicans are therefore very supportive of the move by Minister Hanna to submit the manuals used by JFJ in the children's homes to the attorney general. We call upon JFJ to be proactive and transparent in this matter by ensuring that Minister Hanna receives all the material that was used in the eight-month training programme so that an in-depth investigation can be done.
We await the findings of the attorney general as to whether or not any legal recourse can be taken against JFJ for introducing this age-inappropriate material in the children's homes.
Marsha Thomas
JFJ should provide all material for probe
-->