Current Affairs

US Lobby Group Targets Red Stripe In Boycott Jamaica Campaign

Red Stripe Live

While I agree with the motivation behind this campaign (to pressure the Jamaican government and private sector to improve protection for and decrease discrimination against homosexuals in Jamaica) I think the campaign’s target is misdirected. The campaign is encouraging a boycott of Red Stripe products in major US cities (as well as discouraging tourists from visiting Jamaica). Red Stripe has been one of the more progressive local companies in speaking out against and not supporting entertainers who advocate violence against gays.

Red Stripe had actually withdrawn support for live music shows in Jamaica as a statement against artists who promote violence in general, slackness towards women and anti-gay lyrics, and have only recently (this past weekend) returned to promoting live music events with their “Learning for Life: Project Artist” programme, which trains young persons in all aspects of the music business.

Red Stripe Live show in support of their “Learning for Life” program

Read more at the Gleaner

Previous post

Rootz Underground To Perform At Red Bones Friday

Next post

Sonita Abrahams Working To Prevent Addictive Disorders In Jamaica


  1. September 30, 2014 at 9:54 pm — Reply

    Its like you read my thoughts! You appear to understand so much approximately this,
    such as yoou wrote the guide inn it or something. I bellieve that you could do with a few % to force the message ouse a bit, however other than that, thos is wonderful blog.
    Afantastic read. I’ll crtainly be back.

  2. temple12
    May 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm — Reply

    You know…what everyone tends to forget is that each & every individual has the right to voice their beliefs, and we can all agree to disagree.
    As to the comment that gays seek asylum abroad….I remember news articles in the international media about a couple of such cases…2 of them were actually found to have impregnated women (1 asylum seeker granted status had inpregnated 4 women abroad)…so much for being gay and seeking asylum.
    The boycott….most lobby groups (whether gays, tobacco, automotive manufacturers etc) do not believe that anyone else has the right to speak and to put forward their views. Only what they think matters.
    After years abroad I still found it strange to see 2 men/2 women kissing or walking down a road holding hands and touching each other suggestively…that will never change but that does not mean I do not know gay people, or that I have a problem with them. And before anyone gets out of their pram, I believe everyone has the right to their beliefs, and that no one has the right to put down others for what they believe in.
    However when lobbyists can have someone like Ms. California removed from a beauty contest because she does not think that gays should be allowed to marry, then I think we have gone too far. Its her view, her belief and she isn’t hurting anyone. She is being upfront enough to state what her views on the subject are. And we should respect that…otherwise we are not being tolerant of others, while demanding tolerance for ourselves.
    Whether it is biblical doctrine, or Mother Nature, or the evolution of the species……the very existence of the human race and the animal kingdom has depended on procreation…in other words male and female “fitting” together.
    Readers…you may not like my views…but I am entitled to them…..and I have never had a problem with gays, whether male or female.
    So what do the lobbyists think about gays adopting children? Would that be considered alright because they are married? Would it be right for a child to be raised with 2 fathers/2 mothers….
    Let me know…..

  3. Ian
    May 5, 2009 at 12:21 pm — Reply

    Until Jamaica (the island and it’s commerce) join the global community there will always be a back lash against gay people in general. Part of this globalization involves increasing the level of education that the masses will need to fully understand how wrong it is to de-face your brother and sister because they have a certain life style. I am reminded by my father and mother that in the 40’s and 50’s the rastafarian movement was looked at with extreme distaste because the belief was that rasta’s were dirty and un-Godly (far from the trueth). Now look at the movement now.

    It take time to breed out ignorance, this is again the same issue.

  4. April 5, 2009 at 9:02 am — Reply

    Wow – ignorance is a bitch eh? I suspect what is probably obvious here – that Red Stripe was a logical choice for the lobbyists because it’s one of the more internationally recognizable brands to come out of Jamaica and thus would resonate immediately to anyone listening to their protest. It’s just unfortunate that they didn’t bother to do any research on the business they are targeting. And my goodness – its so EASY to find any number of businesses, organizations, or individuals in both the public and private sectors in Jamaica to target in this boycott!! It’s sick but true to say that we Jamaicans have enjoyed a local freedom of open discrimination and abuse of our gay brothers for time immemorial!

    I worry of course about the bad press for Jamaica on the one hand, but on the other, I can’t object to the idea of this protest as we yardies are undeniably known for such reprehensible views and behavior towards the LGBT community.

    It of course doesn’t help that we have yet to see one of our social or political leaders take a public stand in this. But back to the other hand – there’s quantifiable reason for this: in Jamaica – it’s literally a risk to your physical safety to support ANYTHING to do with gay men and women!!! In fact – I find myself just a tad bit nervous even commenting here on the matter. For God’s sake we’re taking about a nation from where members of the LGBT community seek asylum…yes…ASYLUM here in the States due to the real danger of being openly gay in Jamaica.

    Should this boycott become a big international campaign, will it change anything in Jamaica truly or will it simply make it more dangerous for gay men and women due to some violent backlash; like the child being beaten for the exposed bad behavior of the parent?!?! I think the only thing that could make this boycott somewhat useful on the human/equal rights stage is for a responsible leader in our country to recognize the existing distaste that other nations hold for us regarding this issue, and thus taking the social and political risk to stand with the international community in an attempt to start creating (and I hate to use this word but we’d have to start somewhere!) TOLERANCE.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *