By: The Guardian
April 15, 2025
Growing up in a single-parent home in poor communities in Jamaica was tough for Glenroy Murray. But beyond the pain of economic disadvantage, the greater challenge, he said, was the constant fear that someone would discover his closely guarded secret. He was attracted to boys.
Instinctively, he knew that being gay was simply not acceptable in his community. “It was very obvious that I was different by many standards in this country – and what you consider effeminate,” he said, adding that it was “made very clear” to him that that was not appropriate.
Murray said over time, his effeminacy was explained away as a consequence of being academically gifted. But as he entered adolescence, it became increasingly difficult to hide his attraction to boys.
One experience that fueled his fear, he said, was learning about a boy in his school whose diary was found with confessions of same sex attraction. “There was a mob formed to beat him,” Murray said, adding that teachers had to intervene to protect the student and he had to be moved to a new school.
At 17, Murray’s family discovered he was in a gay relationship and threatened to evict him. He understood, he said, the challenge they faced at the time, particularly his mom. “She operated from a space of fear … the last thing you want to hear is that [your son] is gay because that’s a source of personal embarrassment,” he said.
Murray was able to work things out with his mom, who he said is now his biggest supporter. But in addition to the risks of violence and community ostracism, he had to contend with the fact that his identity could make him a criminal because in Jamaica “buggery” – the term used to describe anal sex – is illegal.
Today, as executive director at the Equality for All Foundation and senior Caribbean associate for the Human Dignity Trust, two LGBTQ+ rights organisations, Murray is one of many activists across the Caribbean who are fighting to remove such prohibitions.
And they are concerned about the recent outcome of an appeal against a 2018 high court judgment in Trinidad and Tobago to remove the country’s “buggery law” passed in 1925 under British rule. Last month Trinidad’s supreme court upheld the government’s appeal against the 2018 ruling and recriminalised the act.
Téa Braun, chief executive of Human Dignity Trust, described the outcome of the case as “very disheartening” and a regression in progress made to remove “antiquated penal codes imposed during British colonial times” that “breach the fundamental human rights of LGBT people”.
Vowing to continue his fight before the privy council in the UK, Trinidad and Tobago’s final court of appeal, Jason Jones, the LGBT+ activist who brought the 2018 case, told the Guardian the supreme court decision revolved around a colonial legal legacy called the “savings clause”.
Murray, who is legally trained and tutors constitutional law at the University of the West Indies, defined this as “provisions in our constitution that essentially say that if a law was in force before the constitution came into force, then you cannot challenge that law on the basis that it violates your rights”.
He said: “These are provisions that protect a lot of the colonial laws from being challenged … a lot of them came up when we were becoming independent as Caribbean countries, so that all the colonial laws were preserved and that it was up to parliament to decide when those laws were changed – rather than people going to court.”
The controversial clauses have split opinions among academics and the judiciary, with contrasting interpretations. The concern among activists is how the privy council will deal with Jones’s case.
“What I’ve noticed in the judgments that are coming out of the privy council is that they take a different approach to savings law clauses than the approach taken by the Caribbean Court of Justice( CCJ),” Murray said.
The CCJ, he said, seems to recognise “there’s a workaround, but the privy council doesn’t see it that way … and so rather than it being about how the privy council feels about LGBT rights … it’s more about how they feel about savings law clauses,” he added.
If the current judgement on the Trinidad and Tobago case is upheld by the privy council, he said, it could set a precedent with implications for the fight to remove buggery laws in Jamaica, where the privy council is also the highest court.
This, Murray believes, will hamper the progress already made in protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ people in the country. While the fight to remove discriminatory laws and discrimination is far from over, Murray said he has seen progress, such as civil service policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
He also referred to a 2023 survey by the Equality for All Foundation, which suggested “significant improvement” in the support for equality rights for LGBTQ+ people, with a 19% drop, from 69% in 2018 to 50% in 2023, in the number of people who did not support legislative changes to protect these rights.
Fellow Jamaican activist, Dane Lewis, who is the regional programme manager for the Caribbean Forum for the Liberation and Acceptance of all Genders and Sexualities, also referred to, what he saw as, a positive trend of several Caribbean countries repealing buggery laws in recent times.
But the Trinidad and Tobago case, the activists say, demonstrates the need to step up their advocacy. In addition to fighting through the courts, they are working, they said, on strategies such as encouraging political participation among LGBTQ+ people so they have a voice in decision-making, and engaging and collaborating with other minority communities.
“The fight for the rights of LGBTQ people is a fight for equality for all,” Lewis said. He added: “Our work is focused on trying to make the region as a whole a safe space for all of its people, not just those of us … who experience issues around sexual and gender diversity, but for all of us who live at the margins. So that means … persons who are from the disabled community, women from rural areas … everybody who exists at the margin should be able to enjoy the same freedoms.”