Svenn Miki-Grant is wrong, very wrong, but his case is far more excusable and forgivable than the “experts” who have deceived and confused him. Twenty-four-year-old Svenn Miki-Grant embarks upon an “ambitious” safe sex exercise by distributing condoms to students outside the Woodbrook Government Secondary last week Thursday, and the big guns —TTUTA and others — have come out blazing “Shock and Awe” style, mercilessly blasting him for his “barbaric approach,” “blatantly promoting promiscuity” and so on.
While, on the face of it, one may be tempted to readily agree with Miki-Grant’s critics (who primarily are justified in their condemnation) and join in lambasting him, I believe I must look at a broader picture. Cases such as Miki- Grant’s, need an analysis which goes beyond the mere symptom factor, into the cause factor. Such a perspective would reveal that young Miki-Grant, although very flawed in his actions, and deserving of rebuke, is really a victim of the so-called experts, who have, for several years, advocated condom distribution for school children, and have actually been practising mass condom distribution all over the country. They have conveyed the impression that their abominable and failed approach is “the answer.”
The extremely strange thing is that apparently nobody — except this column of course — has ever seen it fit to condemn the actions of these so-called experts and the various “established bodies,” that should know far better than the obviously simple-minded Miki-Grant. If anything, the disgusting ideas and philosophies of these “professional” safe-sex agents seem to enjoy much endorsements, respect and promotional benefits from some of the same sources which have been viciously chastising Miki-Grant.
Let me cite a few cases in which the real culprits were involved: On March 11, 2000 this column commented, “A little over two weeks ago, the organisers of an AIDS conference at Hilton Trinidad, which included the Health Ministry, Carec and UWI, found it most fitting to passionately suggest that condoms be distributed to our young sons in schools, in order to encourage what they call ‘safe sex.’”
This column (the only voice to be raised against this repugnant idea) contended: “Of course, as everyone knows, if we give the young men condoms in school, it would mean giving them a loud official message as to what to do with the young ladies seated next to them in their classroom… This act will constitute a formal licence to the school children for a shift in focus from books to illicit sex. The resultant effect of course, would be rampant ‘legitimised’ promiscuity.”
In that article this writer also called attention to another instance of the appalling conduct of a visiting “sex education expert,” as another foul piece of advice was advanced to our young people for managing their sexuality: “The onslaught upon our children by ‘the experts’ was compounded last week when Israeli ‘sex education expert’ Gila Bronner suggested that our young adolescent daughters and sons be encouraged in touching, fondling and petting (instead of actual intercourse) as a way of reducing pregnancy, abortion and AIDS.”
Bronner was a guest of the Family Planning Education Workshop held at Hotel Normandie, St Ann’s. Again, if silence meant consent, then everyone in TT, except this columnist — and Pentecostals — fully agreed with the “expert advice” of the Family Planning guest. On February 23, 2002 “Pentecostal Perspective” had to again exercise its vocal cords in crying out against the “safe sex” monster. This time, unfortunately, coming from a priest, as he addressed high school students in South Trinidad. The priest told the students that sex outside of marriage was wrong, but if they felt that they must engage “be safe.” In other words, use a condom.
He went on to declare that the time had come for the Church to “redefine its position on values, morality and sexuality” to match modern trends in the world. Once more, Pastor Cuffie was the voice in the wilderness, challenging and rebuking the priest for his grossly unscriptural and misguided views. In February of this year, Carec was at it again with its bold — and boastful — condom distribution crusade. This time it was a massive history-making 60,000 condoms spread all over the country for distribution at Carnival. Of course, this meant that (despite Carec’s vain attempt to convince us otherwise) thousands of teenage school children in Carnival had access to the free-for-all condoms, for free-for-all promiscuity.
One more time, only “Pentecostal Perspective” expressed horror over Carec’s behaviour. This was done in a piece on March 1, 2003 under the caption, “Carec’s Condom Crusade Grossly Irresponsible.” Condom distribution, of the nature in contention here, irrespective of who does it, is a grotesque, abominable and repulsive act which indeed promotes widespread promiscuity among both adults and younger people. It simply must not be tolerated by any decent parent, child or society.
The biblical road of abstinence is the only safe course. It was quite heartening to hear Prime Minister Patrick Manning unequivocally saying that he was against condoms in schools (Newsday 15/5/03). Svenn Miki-Grant is wrong, very wrong, but he is far more excusable and forgivable than the “experts” who have deceived and confused him.
