This piece refers to attorney "Misa" Shoman. I am assuming that it is really Lisa Shoman.

Caribbean News Now:

BELMOPAN, Belize -- A constitutional motion in which a sex-related law is being challenged in Belize has attracted several high profile international attorneys.

Caleb Oronzco, a health educator and advocate for gay rights, and the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) have filed a motion against the attorney general challenging the constitutionality of section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code, which criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”

Section 53 of the Criminal Code provides: "Every person who has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person or animal shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years."

Oronzco and UNIBAM are seeking a declaration that such section contravenes his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection of the law as enshrined in sections 3, 6, and 14 and affirmed in the preamble of the Belize Constitution. They also seek an order striking out the words "with any person or" from section 53.

The claimants contend that the accepted statutory interpretation of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" is that it criminalises anal sex between two consenting male adults in private and as such it violates their constitutional right to the recognition of human dignity (section 3(c) of the Constitution); the right to the protection of personal privacy (section 3(c) of the Constitution); the right to the protection of the privacy of the home (section 3(c) of Constitution); the right not to be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy (section 14(1) of the Constitution); the right to respect for private life (section 14(1) of Constitution); and the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination (section 6(1) of Constitution).

A battery of local and international attorneys representing Oronzco and UNIBAM include Misa Shoman, SC, whose principals are Christopher Smith QC, and Dr Arif Bulkan Q.C.

The attorney general is represented by senior crown counsel Nigel Hawke, with crown counsel Magalie Perdomo, Andrew Bennett, and Iliana Swift.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the Human Dignity Trust and the International Commission of Jurists have joined as interested parties and are represented by Godfrey Smith SC, and Lord Goldsmith QC.

The matter is scheduled for hearing between July 13 and 15 before Justice Arana.

several folks have complained about this article being riddled with errors... trying to get some detail on the errors...

I wonder how long its been on the books?
http://www.belizelaw.org/lawadmin/PDF%20files/cap101.pdf

Perhaps they seek to clarify and strike the portion of the code which has apparently been misconstrued? On second review of this portion of the code it appears it seeks to address the case of rape against males; the other portions directly address rape and harm against females.

I don't read this section and subsections thereunder as anti-gay...but rather as addressing criminal force as to rape.

This portion of the code specifically: Criminal Code 101 Section VII Criminal Force; subsection 1. Assaults subsection; 2. Rape and Like Crimes subsection; 53. Crimes against the Order of Nature... If the adults (only males are addressed here in this section of the code) are consenting to whatever activity in which they engage, then it does not appear that action would be covered under a Criminal Force/Rape code. But then again, I'm not a Belizean legal professional.

If anything the whole section seems to be sexist and women seem to be not considered perps at all!
page 58- a law that makes having sex with a woman that is an idiot a 5 year jail sentence but does not mention a woman having sex with a man who is an idiot.
assuming some men are.

Agreed, it is written exclusively to address only male-on-male rape in general.

You are right and these laws were adopted from British laws, from the Victorian era. Some yrs ago, two woman I know were in a car in some stage of lovemaking and were arrested. The DPP at the time, also a good friend of mine who happened to be gay, told me he could not prosecute as there is no law on the books that include women and that is because these laws are from the Victorian age, when I guess, the lawmakers never considered that women might have sexual urges. Yes, the name of the lawyer is Lisa Shoman, also a friend of mine. So women can not be prosecuted for same sex relations. I might also add, I do not recall anyone being prosecuted for same sex relations and there are many gay people in Belize, in all sectors of society, who go about their lives. We are pretty much a live and let live society, with stupid people who make stupid comments, like anywhere else. We just had a situation a few weeks ago where a Belizean cross dresser was denied entry to Trinidad. Our problem with changing laws like this is with the Church. They are now lobbying GOB to stop legal abortions in cases of incest and rape. But anyone who wants an abortion, knows which docs perform safe ones, so again, another live and let live situation. And I never heard of a doc arrested for performing an abortion. But I do think its time to change the laws, even if not enforced. Its a reflection of the kind of people we are and these antiquated laws must be changed to reflect our society.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions-Jefferson
Katie,what can we do but
laugh loud and in the face of the complacent.
and page 58 is a good place to start.

The way I am reading this law, page 58 included, is that it only addresses criminal force/assault/rape, not consentual sexual relations between adults. If anything it seems additional language to protect male idiots and minors from female predators would equalize the application of the assault/rape code. But then again I believe less law is better law when applied by intelligent law enforcement and the justice system. Good luck with that anywhere in the world.

Is there another section of the criminal code that actually has anti-gay provisions? I just don't see it here in Section 53, but perhaps it is to be found elsewhere.

That's what I thought too. It is law against non-consensual and under-age sexual relations.

No I don't believe we have an anti-gay laws. If we did they would not have allowed the gay cruise passengers to visit Belize. There were some fringe protesters at the dock side hurling verbal abuse, but no law enforcement preventing the visitors from alighting.

Several areas the criminal code refers to servants,not beating them and such,
definitely written a long time ago and probably by republicans!

Interesting leap there Elbert considering there are no Republicans and/or Democrats in British politics or parliament

Methinks that such an outrage as a law flying in the face of tradition and culture of doing as one pleases with one's servants would have been written by liberals rather than conservatives.

Your right I have it backwards, conservatives, unionist, democrats, troys, socialist and the like have always been confusing to me. I think I'm correct in thinking that the republicans would be the ones wealthy enough to own servants and the rest would be those in servitude complaining or am I still confused?

Having servants is rather neat. Very easy to get used to and quite handy to have around especially if one has children or pets. Though sometimes keeping them on task is a hassle, they're usually very well-behaved. Never had to use the whip.

There is mention of two Belizean laws specifically targeting gay males, which appears in the Greenwood Encyclopedia of LGBT Issues Worldwide (Vol 1, p.20). One concerns immigration and the other deals with the "anti-sodomy" law discussed in this forum. Ironically, the latter Belizean law was passed in 2003, the same year that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the few remaining anti-sodomy laws in that country.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=X6-qGoFl...p;q&f=false

PM Mum On Taking Sodomy Laws Off The Books

The United Belize Advocacy Movement, UNIBAM, a gay rights group is generating lots of buzz with a case it has taken to the Supreme Court Of Belize.

UNIBAM has filed a motion against the attorney general challenging the constitutionality of section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code, which criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any person" which is basically a law banning sodomy.

The case has attracted major international attention. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the Human Dignity Trust and the International Commission of Jurists have joined as interested parties on the side of UNIBAM.

In the opposing corner is the government of Belize backed up by a group of Christian Churches. Today the usually forthcoming Prime Minister told us he's not making any personal comment on keeping the sodomy laws on the books:…

PM Dean Barrow
"That it not happen. I remember a year and a half or so I spoke at a UB graduation and I said that one of the things we have to be grateful for in this country is that the culture wars that we see in the united States have not been imported into Belize, well obviously this is the start of exactly such a phenomenon. I would limit myself to saying that as a government has taken the position that it needs to argue for the constitutionality of the law that is in place that's being challenge and so I would not go beyond that official position. I am not prepared to comment on my own physiological conviction or lack thereof. That is the official position of the government. This is one time when it might be wise for me to say nothing more."

An international news report from a Christian news outlet said that a lawyer for the Coalition of Christian Churches filed court papers today.

Despite calls to the court and a local attorney, we weren't able to find out if those papers had been filed. The hearing in the Belize Supreme Court on the lawsuit is scheduled for July. The case is scheduled to go to court in July.

Channel 7

I watched the news last night and am not sure what the PM is saying, especially his remark about 'cultural wars' and not sure if that means Belize is "live and let live" and leave it at that or if he is implying gay rights is imported. I know the conservative church groups here have met with him about abolishing abortion for incest and rape and tossed in their stance on gay rights. But the PM has to return to his office in Belmopan on Monday and face all the gay and Bi people who work in govt who will be affected by this. And there are many. And all these good and value people should be really pissed off at him for not standing up for them and legally protect their right to live how they want. Whatever the PM's stance on gay rights it, is does not stop him from hiring, appointing, nominating and promoting people who are gay and Bi. It seems he does not want to oppose the church publically; we'll see what they do in court.

I was wondering that myself Katie. I guessed he may have been referring to the fact that the church groups are being led by a north american evangelist, who seems to be the one trying to stir up the churches to campaign on these issues. It would be nice to see a leader with the cohunes to stand up to religious extremists but it seems that type of leadership is pretty rare world wide these days. It would also seem a bit odd to me if on one hand the PM were calling for hanging and on the other trying to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest. I certainly think it will remain up to the courts to make the final decisions on these issues and I'm glad for that as there will hopefully be a decision not based upon one religion's view on morality.

CHURCH LEADERS SPEAK AGAINST “GAY AGENDA”

Church leaders today issued a rare press release and delved headlong into the growing public discourse of the so-called gay agenda. Signed by Bishop Dorick Wright of the Roman Catholic Diocese, Bishop Philip Wright of the Anglican Diocese and Reverend Eugene Crawford of the Belize Association of Evangelical Churches, the statement formally announced that Christian leaders have applied to join the government in the case of Caleb Orozco and UNIBAM versus the Attorney General of Belize. The release says UNIBAM is heavily influenced by foreign interests who seek to impose a world view that directly contradicts the supremacy of God as reflected in our laws by seeking to abolish the nation’s sodomy laws. The church leaders say that the action challenged our national sovereignty and threatens our very way of life. Their statement says, and we quote: “We declare that God is the author of all creation as our Constitution affirms by recognizing the supremacy of God,” end of quote. The leaders make known in their release, that what they describe as the homosexual agenda insists on the promotion of homosexual acts in the schools and society and undermined the rights of parents as primary educators of their children. Ultimately the release concludes, is that the promotion of sodomy and immoral behaviour, disguised as comprehensive sexual education will lead ultimately to a call for same-sex marriage in Belize. According to the clergy statement, quote: “this lawsuit was filed to establish a new right to engage in homosexual acts in Belize. In every country that has granted a new right to homosexual behaviour, activists have promoted and steadily expanded this right t trump universally recognized rights to religious freedom and expression,” end of quote. The release ends by saying that the Church is joining the Supreme Court case as interested parties representing a broad majority of Christian churches in Belize who do not support these initiatives of changing our laws to accommodate homosexual behaviour. The high powers team of attorneys who will represent the churches s interested parties include Senior Counsels Rodwell Williams and Eamon Courtenay as well as attorneys Michel Chebat, Jackie Marshalleck and Christopher Coye. The case in question is expected to come up for hearing in the Supreme Court in July of this year.

LOVEFM

---

Council of Churches against UNIBAM’s seeking of gay rights

On Tuesday the Council of Churches filed an application in the Supreme Court to join the Attorney General’s Office in a case brought by the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) and its executive president, Caleb Orosco. It’s a case that is attracting local and international attention and high profile lawyers are sitting on both sides of the legal divide. UNIBAM is challenging Section Fifty-Three of the criminal code, which states that carnal intercourse against the order of nature is an indictable matter which carries a prison sentence of up to ten years. Orosco, who is openly gay, is seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional since gays can face prison time for sexual preferences. However, the clergy has come forward with a stinging statement condemning UNIBAM‘s action. According to Canon Leroy Flowers, who represents the Council of Churches, the motion to argue the validity of the law presents a moral argument despite its origin within the Constitution.

Canon Leroy Flowers, Representative, Council of Churches

“Nobody should be shocked or surprised. The church is the moral authority within the context of the nation and therefore it is the church’s view that the very challenge that has been brought against the attorney general is really an attack on the teachings of the church and therefore has made its stand known. This should not be a thing [that’s] new to anyone. We see this as another undermining of the very moral fiber of the society and while there are many members who may not necessarily agree with the church’s position. The church has got to maintain its stance [and] its understanding but more importantly as a society we’ve said the very preamble of our constitution talks about the supremacy of God. You can’t talk about the supremacy of God and then undermine the very thing that seeks to uphold that principle and we feel that a part of that principle has to be between a man and a woman and not a man and a man or two women for that matter or a man and an animal as it were. Now this does not in any way signify the purity of the church. It simply seeks to challenge what we believe to be part of the moral fiber of our nation.”

Later in the news cast, we’ll have the reaction from UNIBAM’s executive president.

Channel 5

UNIBAM President says homosexual rights are basic human rights

Earlier we told you that the churches view the claim on gay rights brought against the attorney general by UNIBAM as an attack on the moral fiber of the nation. According to the UNIBAM executive president, however, the lawsuit is simply a means by which homosexuals are standing up for their basic human rights through advocacy at the Supreme Court Level. If you haven’t made up your mind on the issue, Caleb Orosco defended his case this afternoon.

Caleb Orosco, Executive President, UNIBAM

“Our case isn’t unique in terms of what we’re trying to do. We’re using a democratic tool. The tool is the Supreme Court and the use of the Constitution. We are not unique in terms of bringing constitutional challenges. There are other groups which have done that and have used the court to for finding redress so our case is not unique in that regard. Beyond them politicizing the sexual rights of individuals that they know nothing about really is a dirty. What it means is that gay people or gay men in particular, bisexual men in particular have stood up for basic human rights. What is means is that this case will and have generated a discussion on the basic consciousness of every individual in this country. How would you treat your own blood if they were gay?”

Channel 5

Church rep says marriage can only be between man and woman

On the other hand, Canon Flowers believes the issue extends beyond gay rights. He says the powers vested in marriage officers, specifically priests, are to administer wedding vows only to a man and a woman.

Canon Leroy Flowers

“There is no denying the fact that it is much more than gay rights per se. I think it’s a matter of how do we exist as a society. What are the underlying principles besides just the law all that the government may have to do is repeal that portion of the law but it’s about men getting married, rights and responsibilities given to them under the law of the land. Those are the issues that should be vexing our minds as it were because we need to remember that in the society that the government gives authority for marriage officers. Most clergy persons are marriage officers in this land but that authority is only given by the state. Now if the state has to amend the law can the state now withholds permission for clergy persons to marry same sex couples?”

The case will be argued by a cadre of high profile attorneys. Representing Orosco and UNIBAM is Senior Counsel Lisa Shoman while Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, former attorney general for England and Wales and Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith are representing a group of international organizations who have joined UNIBAM as interested parties. The Council of Churches is being represented by attorneys Rodwell Williams, Eamon Courtenay, Michel Chebat, Jackie Marshalleck and Chris Coye.

Channel 5

I'm not sure how this cadre of lawyers hired to rep the church will deal with their colleagues, family members, friends and neighbors who are gay. I like Father Flowers, but recently was at a funeral he presided over and he said something insulting about Jews and told him about it after the service. I guess this is easier for the church to organize against than actually doing something important, like helping single mothers, kids on the streets, feeding programs and the like, which we really need help with. Its just stupid.

from G. Michael Reid

In February of 1998, the MS Leeward sailed into Belize’s harbor and
created quite a stir. The ship was met at the harbor by placard
carrying protesters comprised of religious zealots and conservatives
who were concerned about the adverse effects that the ship of gay
visitors would have on our country. The ship came and left without
major incident and less than a week later, another ship load of
same-sex lovers were docking with GOD knows how many other ships
following. While Belize certainly seems to have gone to the dogs,
there is no evidence to suggest that any of our current problems are
as a result of any visitor, gay or otherwise, to our shores.

Those who protested seemed to have come to grips with the futility or
their cause and the mootness of their point.
That is until recently, when a challenge to Belize’s law against
homosexuality was mounted in court by the United Belize Advocacy
Movement led by Caleb Orosco. Like hot water bringing out roaches,
this recent challenge has given lure to a latent jaundiced sentiment.
It might not be a majority view but it comes from strong and
influential quarters.

The issue of homosexuality and lesbianism has, for the most part, been
taboo in Belize although most will agree that the practice is almost
widespread. Rumors run rampant about the many prominent citizens who
are believed to be living in said “sin” and if half the rumors are
true, well then the numbers are at the very least, significant. At
some point, the issue will have to be brought to the forefront and
made to undergo the scrutiny of open and intelligent debate.

What Caleb Orosco has done is to bring this issue right into our faces
and is forcing us to take a long hard look at our biases and
convictions regarding this matter. Many are taking the hard-line
stance of intolerance and condemnation while others employ the age old
axiom of “God loving the sinner but hating the sin”. Some are
questioning whether we should truly label same-sex matters as really
even a wrong or a sin or only a GOD given right to choose. There is
also the possibility of it being a predetermined condition. Which
brings us to the very crux of this matter; are people born that way or
do they choose to be what they are?

This entire argument is bogged and mired at that very premise which
must first be properly defined and clarified before we can begin to
move forward. Countless studies and research have been done, and
continues to be done, which ranges from isolating DNA to observing gay
behavior in animals. As of yet, the jury is still out and no one
absolute explanation of homosexuality has been found. The question has
rightly been pondered; would society even accept the answer should it
be found and happen to not coincide with the majority view of the day?

As far as I understand it, Orosco and his UNIBAM are asking the courts
to distinguish between homosexuality and bestiality. I find no major
problem with that. I believe that sexual intercourse between two
human beings (however wrong it is perceived to be) cannot be equated
with sexual intercourse between man and beast. By the same token, I
am not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage nor would I advocate
for open acceptance of homosexuality. I am not convinced though, that
one would necessarily lead to the other. A press release from the
Council of Churches and the Belize Association of Evangelical Churches
presents a rather flawed argument and one that is laden with
ridiculous presumptions.

UNIBAM is described by the Churches as “being heavily influenced by
foreign interest who seek to impose a worldview that directly
contradicts the supremacy of GOD as reflected in our laws…” Many
homosexuals are in fact, staunchly religious and can be seen in church
on more regular a basis than most heterosexuals I know; so where is
the challenge to the “Supremacy of GOD?” The release goes on to
suggest that the UNIBAM lawsuit “challenges our national sovereignty
and threatens our very way of life, not least by targeting our
children.” Disturbing if true but why do I feel that they are reading
way too much into all of this? The question is, “what are we afraid
of?”

Are our convictions and morals so fragile that we would be influenced
by the mere observance of behavior different than ours? Or is it a
case of sexual insecurity? There have been instances when those
crying out the loudest against homosexuality were found to be
themselves engaged in their own “unnatural acts.” A classic example
was evangelist Ted Haggard, who while bashing gays and lesbians from
the pulpit, was secretly using drugs and seeking sexual gratification
from a male prostitute. If you ask me, hypocrisy is a much bigger sin
than homosexuality.

Notice I have made no attempt at disclaimer here; I feel no need to.
I am quite secure in my orientation and worry little about anyone
accusing me of carrying a torch for homosexuality. I am just not
homophobic and find it as repulsive as racism or any other type of
prejudice. I prefer to live by the words of the poet, Joaquin Miller
who wrote:

In men whom men condemn as ill, I find as much of goodness still
In men whom men pronounce divine, I find so much of sin and blot
I do not dare to draw a line, between the two where GOD has not.

from another friend in response to the above...

When i was a child growing up in the old capital, this type of talk was forbidden, period. And harsh mocking terms were used whenever this issue was raised. That is just historical fact in Belize of decades gone by.

The Church, Homosexuality & the Constitution

Written by: Godfrey Smith

The tripartite combine of the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Evangelical Churches recently issued a reactive, near hysterical press release in response to the case brought by Caleb Orosco and the United Belize Advocacy Movement (UNIBAM) seeking to decriminalize consensual homosexual conduct in Belize. 

While reason has never been the handmaiden of religion, the Church’s release was embarrassingly unhinged; it accused UNIBAM of being influenced by “predatory foreign interests” who seek to impose a worldview that directly contradicts the Supremacy of God, challenges national sovereignty and threatens Belizeans’ way of life. 

They’ve got it quite wrong. UNIBAM’s case has the rather narrow compass of getting the Belize Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional section 53 of the Belize Criminal Code that states that every person who has carnal knowledge against the order of nature with any person shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.

The case does not seek to establish a new right to engage in homosexual acts in Belize, as contended by the Churches.  That right already exists through the constitutional safeguard of the right to privacy. UNIBAM seeks, rightfully, to torpedo section 53 of the Criminal Code (as it relates to criminalization of consensual sexual intercourse between adult males) which is at odds with that constitutional right. 

Particular sections of the laws of Belize are challenged very regularly in the Supreme Court on the ground of unconstitutionality.  UNIBAM’s case is not a “challenge to our national sovereignty” as apparently perceived by the Churches; it is an exercise of a democratic and constitutional right to insist on equal protection of the law and to assert the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the Church.

UNIBAM’s case is not an insidious attempt, as contended for by the Churches, to eventually trump universally recognized rights to religious freedom and expression; quite the opposite in fact. It is an attempt to ensure that religious zealotry does not trump universal human rights law which prohibits the criminalization of sexual identity, including lesbian and gay sexual identity. 

Understanding how the court declaration that UNIBAM seeks contradicts the Supremacy of God has proven as elusive as the Cheshire cat, perceptible perhaps only to those prone to celestial flights of fancy. 

At the 63rd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Declaration on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity on 18th December 2008, the Vatican’s delegation stated that:
 

“The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them.”
 

Rev. Philip J. Bené, Legal Attaché to the Vatican’s Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations stated that same month that

 

“The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.”
 

On December 2nd 2008, Fr. Federico Lombardi, Director of the Vatican Press Office, issued a statement that the rejection of all forms of unjust discrimination (which is enshrined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) not only excludes the death penalty but all forms of penal legislation that are violent or discriminatory towards homosexual persons.

Far from contradicting the Supremacy of God, UNIBAM’s cause is sanctioned by the Vatican itself – something the Roman Catholic Diocese should have checked before aligning itself in support of maintaining the criminalization of homosexual conduct and, by so doing, contradicting statements sanctioned by the Pope whose pronouncements on such matters is infallible.

It could hardly be blasphemous to say that if the Pope is against criminal penalties against homosexuals then, by virtue of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it means that God is in favour of doing away with such criminal penalties against them. 

Papal infallibility, it may be recalled, is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error. If anything, it is therefore the Belize Roman Catholic Diocese’s position – not UNIBAM’s court challenge – that contradicts the Supremacy of God.

The Belize conclave of Churches, in registering their opposition to the case, invoked that part of Scripture that says that Man is created in the image of God and therefore has an inherent dignity and worth.

Curiously, this was the same teaching that the Anglican Bishops of Southern Africa quoted in opposing the criminalization of homosexual people in that part of the world. They stated:
 

“…we are united in opposing the criminalization of homosexual people …We emphasize the teachings of the Scriptures that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore must be treated with respect and accorded human dignity… As Bishops we believe that it is immoral to permit or support oppression of, or discrimination against, people on the grounds of their sexual orientation, and contrary to the teaching of the gospel; particularly Jesus’ command that we should love one another as he has loved us, without distinction.”

The Belize Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are either ignorant of the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican or are deliberately misleading the public on the position of their respective Churches.

The head offices of Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church have made clear that whilst not endorsing a lesbian and gay lifestyle, they are fundamentally opposed to the use of the criminal law to regulate sexual identity.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the International Commission of Jurists and the Human Dignity Trust who have joined in support of UNIBAM’s case as Interested Parties are not foreign interests challenging our national sovereignty and way of life. 

The criminalization of gay sexual identity is a violation of international human rights law and therefore necessarily attracts the interest and involvement of the international community. These three organizations reflect the concerns of the international legal community.  Belize cannot enjoy the benefits of being a member of the international community when it is convenient to do so, but opt out of international human rights norms when it chooses to.

This will not be the first time that the Church in Belize has confronted the Constitution and lost. In Wade v Roches, a local cause célèbre, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Chief Justice Conteh that the Roman Catholic Church had discriminated against Ms. Roches, contrary to her constitutional rights, by terminating her employment as a teacher after she became pregnant. It did not matter that Church’s published policy was that their teachers could not have children out of wedlock.

Lest it be forgotten, religion, like race, has been the cause of some of history’s most tragic wars and the perpetration of some of the worst atrocities against human beings.  To champion the obvious: where there is a conflict between religious articles of faith and universal human rights law, universal human rights must always trump religion.  Equally, where there is a confrontation between the Church and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail. 

Flashpoint Belize