Date Posted: April 09, 2008.
Antigua's Attorney-General Justin Simon has declared,
according to the Antigua sun, that "the government has
no intention of changing legislation that criminalises
homosexual acts."
The declaration reportedly came in the island's Parliament
in response to a suggestion on radio to the contrary. The
attorney-general apparently "took issue with the suggestion
that the current administration condones and intends to
legalise homosexual behaviour, saying that this has led to
heightened public concern, particularly from those who
believe that the issue is part of the UPP’s legislative
agenda."
An extract from the Sun's Report written by by Patricia
Campbell is below:
Simon indicated that he could no longer ignore such
statements by individuals seeking to create “unnecessary
public hysteria,” and had to set the record straight in the
light of increasing feedback to his office from concerned
people.
He noted that what he termed “the unnatural offences of
sodomy and bestiality” had been included as criminal acts in
the law since 1873 and pointed out that the penalties for
these offences include prison sentences. He stated
definitively that, “this administration has made no changes
to that piece of legislation.”
The attorney-general also noted that he has been accused of
instituting a law benefiting same sex unions and addressed
the legislation in question – the Integrity in Public Life
Act of 2004.
This legislation, among other things, requires people
holding certain positions in public life to make
declarations of their financial affairs, along with the
assets of their spouses and minor children, to the Integrity
Commission.
Section two of the Act defines the spouse as, “the person to
whom the person in public life is married or who is living
with that person in the circumstances of husband and wife
for a period of three years.” Part three of the Act is,
however, controversial because it extends the reference to a
spouse to include two single people who are not blood
relations, but who have lived together for five years or
more. The Act imposes the spousal requirements on the person
who lives with the “person in public life”, regardless of
gender or the nature of their relationship.
The attorney-general contended that this section in the Act
is intended to address ways that a person in public life
might conceal assets by vesting those assets in people who
are not blood relations and maintained that the “spouse” in
this instance is “a legal fiction.”
He indicated that the inclusion of such a person on the
spousal requirement was not a potential recognition of a
same sex spouse, since it is merely intended to ensure that
all fall within the ambit of the legislation and the Act
specifically states that “it is for that purpose and that
purpose only.” |
