Tuesday, June 30, 2009

30012 Gun Licences Guyana Review June 1999


The story in the Guyana review of June 1999 captioned "30,012 Gun licences Guyana Review June 1999", is found at this new location: http://www.esnips.com/doc/2d792105-deac-4c1d-8cd0-ae71166b947b/30,012-gun-licences;-Guyana-Review;-June-1999

My apologies, the first page is actually shown after the second.

The page was formerly located at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2034764/30012-gun-licences-Guyana-Review-June-1999

Response to Killing at Lusignan in Guyana 1 26 08

Context: Guyana woke up on Saturday 26th January to the horror of the news of 11 of its citizens killed by an armed gang of marauders in Lusignan. It resembled a similar attack on another village, Agricola, in March 2006, in which 8 persons of a different ethnicity died. Sadly, no period of national mourning was declared at that time.

Twenty-four hours later, a predictably inadequate, and certainly premature, scenario of speculation began to play itself out. One newspaper (recklessly?) drew a parallel between this latest incident and the adjoining and troubled village of Buxton, eloquently illustrating that village’s “character” in the shape of a grenade with its pin invitingly pointed to the reader. There was no thought that 99% of that village is similarly traumatized by criminal gang (and police/military) activity. There was no proof offered of culpability. But as an invitation to racial connotation, the point was made. What price subtlety and investigative journalism?

Similarly, predictable calls in the letters section of that newspaper for the government’s petition to the USA for the “release” of Shaheed “Roger” Khan seem to forget that hundreds were killed during Khan’s self-styled (and state-accommodated?) campaign of vigilante adventure.
Former Minister Ronald Gajraj, also implicated thereby, was also shouted for. Now, no one ever sees these bandits, none are ever captured alive, police patrols are always distant, and little progress is made in investigations. Have Gajraj's and Khan's "Phantom (Death) Squads" been reactivated? Is this a terrible hoax being played out on Guyana and Guyanese, as evil men play out a parody consistent with the obvious and deliberate destruction of local parliamentary democracy (see “Needs Assessment of the Guyana national Assembly”; http://www.parliament.gov.gy/sirdaviesreport.pdf ) and its equally damning sequel (“Addendum to the Needs Assessment … ”; http://www.sdnp.org.gy/parliament/sirdavies_addendum.pdf ).
Robert H. Knight reminds us that societal chaos ushers in tyrants who promise to restore order by any means.

And everyone now seems to forget previous appeals to the government to limit its indiscriminate distribution of gun licences to its supporters (see “30,012 gun licences Guyana Review June 1999”). Has the amount doubled by now? The Ethnic Relations Commission has in the past consistently refused to address the ethnicity of persons to whom the licences have been distributed. The administration (see “The President’s wild statement about guns is irresponsible” at http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_archive?id=56501920; and also “Killing the Guyana Review, and a story about 30,012 weapons” at http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-251--7-7--.html) has been studiously silent on the issue. Haven’t we learnt anything from Rwanda? Is this what “The Foreign Exchange of Hate” warned us about? Who wins in these situations?
And now … an appeal to reason, to justice, to forgiveness, to a new start, to a withdrawal of the weapons.

Dear Editor,

Enough is enough! This nonsense must stop!

I condemn the murder of 11 citizens of Guyana in Lusignan yesterday Saturday 26th January 2008, and call upon the Guyana Police Force to spare no effort or resource to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice.

Fuelled by sin in our nation, homicidal demons of murder, violence and racism stalk our land … and now they must be stopped, by every spiritual and physical resource the nation can bring to bear.

In addition to racism, our national enemies are murder and violence, not each other. We must condemn and denounce every instance of their manifestation. We must all fight against murder and violence and racism, together, as one people.

In March 2006, a similar tragedy was foisted upon the community of Agricola, and eight people were left dead.

In the agony of this latest of many senseless tragedies, speculation runs rife, and emotions run hot, and many citizens will be tempted to forget the many proud moments of our nation’s past, and the present and future opportunities of unity in diversity embodied in our national motto: “One People, One Nation, One Destiny!

But we must not forget! We must be mature! We must be calm, even as we grieve for our fallen countrymen!

Like thieves in the night, these killers and their principals have disappeared to their lairs of iniquity, their dens of evil. However, God’s Word tells us what this evil is, and what this evil does … in Psalm 57:20-21:

But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

We must all confront the wicked, and overcome and replace evil’s restlessness with God’s peace … not peace at any price … not appeasement … but peace with honour and justice per Stott.

Too many … hundreds of every race and creed … have died in Guyana in the past decade for us to not now consider truly unified efforts at achieving this Godly peace. After Stott, Christians should and must stress the need to look beyond the defeat and surrender of the national enemy … to its repentance and rehabilitation. The punishment of evil is an essential part of God’s moral government of the world, but retributive and reformative justice go hand in hand. Even then, the highest and noblest of all attitudes to evil is to seek to overcome it with good.

Now, since righteousness exalts a nation, and despite the death and distrust in our historical past, forgiveness is the place where we begin this noble national experiment. Withdrawing the thousands of weapons recklessly distributed marks its ending.

We of sounder minds at this hour of national grief must forgive each other for our past sins against each other and against God, and unite to rid Guyana of the triple evils of murder, violence and racism.

Christians should/must now offer their support and presence to the authorities in their visit to every village on the East Coast, and in Guyana generally, to spread this message.

Evil will only succeed when good men do nothing!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
27th January 2008

Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court Legal Disaster

Context: The following is a copy of a letter of response appearing in the Stabroek News of December 15, 2007. Using editorial prerogative, fully one-third of that letter was deleted by SN. It is important, however, to have the reader note the five highlighted examples of legal confusion that can arise if the Caribbean adopts “Gay Rights” laws.

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by “Members of SASOD” (SN 12/12/07) captioned “Homophobia in the Caribbean has to change”, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. This response is copied to Grenada’s Minister of Tourism and the local press in that country, since SASOD in its letter (while name-dropping) completely ignores the evidence of the association of GLBT-behaviour with the sexual abuse of children, crime, and the destruction of the national social ethos. It is important to stress the following:

1. A preponderance of fact-based knowledge now exists to show that homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. We had cited Roger Magnuson’s careful legal proposition at 2.2 and 3.4 of the article “An Initial Critique of Guyana’s National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) in that regard. As usual, the issues cited therein remain unanswered by SASOD. This is hypocritical and unprofessional.

2. SASOD again refuses to address this evidence, but chooses rather to adopt the familiar but still inadequate treatment of the ad-hominem argument, citing “UN” and “human-rights” arguments that are misplaced and devoid of intellectual merit. We had cited in response the careful and decisive articulation of evidence in the “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) compiled by fine legal minds at Regent University, and should now do so again. It is the truth that sets persons free from sexual disorders.

We had also addressed many of SASOD’s arguments before in 2006 in rebuttal to its reckless promotion of Vikran Seth’s “Open Letter”. The arguments still hold. A copy of that response is found online as “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/response-to-vikram-seths-open-letter.html . This should be required reading for policy makers. David Lee Mundy’s conclusion in that expose’ bears repeating, especially given cases currently before the courts in Guyana:

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia...."

Now, relative to discrimination, shelter, and accommodation, Guyana’s ‘National Policy’ document of 1998 already makes provision for non-discrimination in the working environment, and there should be no further legislation in this regard. SASOD, and possibly the NAC, have erred grievously in mixing up the legitimate concerns of PLWHA with protecting homosexuality and bisexuality, legalizing buggery and prostitution, and ignoring commonsense medical imperatives aimed at fighting HIV/AIDS. Magnuson offers that to go further in supporting “gay rights” ordinances, “anti-discrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation of the sort SASOD wants would be to court the following legal disasters: (1) Negating the right of parents or school districts to control the moral calibre of the person who teaches their children; (2) Negating the right of an employer to determine whether an applicant’s moral character will affect his job performance, and; (3) Negating the right of churches and other religious entities to exclude, or refuse to hire, someone whose lifestyle is contrary to their religious convictions. A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for example, the possible “protected” behaviours under a gay rights ordinance (cited in “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” by Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon , 97266 ; 1990; Pages 98-100) …

* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.
* An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses” because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal.
* A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution is a crime under (state) law.
* A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the making/selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law.
* Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography, and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.

Concludes Magnuson: “Those who think such results unlikely need only review the surprising interpretations courts give broadly worded laws”. Finally, the comment in the first paragraph of page 2/16 of the review by Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:

".... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
13th December 2007

Monday, June 29, 2009

THE CASE FOR SCHOLARSHIP IN KEAN GIBSON'S BOOK

Context:

The following is a reprint of a series of messages sent to the LOSP website (http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/ ) in 2004 at the height of public submissions to Guyana’s Ethnic Relations Commission as it “investigated” Kean Gibson’s book “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana”. The very idea of censoring a book, abandoning the idea of scholarly rebuttal, represented a new and dangerous development for Guyana.

For the Christian community, in particular, the implications were clear.

In a local environment teeming with Hindu-Nationalist sentiment, later eloquently characterized by the words of Melanie Phillips (in another country) per the Daily Mail of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime!" (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ), it was not surprising that the Christian “representative” on the ERC allegedly “abstained” when called upon to vote on the “banning” of “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana”. Despite calls that the voting record of the Commissioners be revealed, or thereafter be made mandatory in all decisions, there has been no response from that body.

Fascinating aftershocks to that dubious ruling have been attempts to establish an “Inter-Religious Television Station” (see “Why an Inter-Religious TV Channel is Dangerous for Guyana”), the removal of the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) from the local airwaves (it would be eye-opening to many to find out who has TBN’s local representative in court after having organized an illegal buyout of TBN’s broadcast contractor), TBN’s “replacement” with the substandard broadcast signal from DayStar (DayStar refuses to divulge the names of its local representatives in correspondence from its head office) and an accusation that Christian protests over casino gambling earlier in 2007 represented a “threat to national security” (see http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56511661; “The Christian protest against casino gambling presents no threat to national security”).

Kean Gibson sequel to “The Cycle …” has been the equally fascinating treatment: “Sacred Duty: Hinduism and Violence in Guyana”.

Roger Williams
Georgetown
December 2007


THE CASE FOR SCHOLARSHIP IN KEAN GIBSON’S BOOK
Roger Williams
April 21, 2004
Correspondence to LOSP website

(http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/news402/ns4042114.htm)

Much of the criticism of Dr. Gibson's book has so far taken place at an astonishingly simplistic level, and has focused on one particular aspect. This is an injustice to intellect and scholarship. We need to broaden the scope and intensity of the analysis, and this is the first of six parts of that process.

We begin by assessing a lengthy (amounting to a full page) denunciation [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] of the book by one M. Hackett in the Guyana Chronicle of November 14th, 2003. Thereafter, we should consider a similarly lengthy denunciation by Frederick Kissoon, and assess the book chapter by chapter for the issues it raises.

The point is: scholarship must be answered by scholarship ... and truth will out. Demonizing the book serves no useful purpose, and only seems to fuel a belief that "hate-crime" legislation should be enacted. This would be unwise, as explained in the other submissions. Persons should shy away from the emotional style that is fuelling the current verbal debate.

First Hackett. Early on, he makes the careful distinction that he is neither Black nor Indian, and this may explain some of his indecision in trying to decide on what to finally say about Gibson and her work. Consider that the denunciation exists alongside these commendations: (1) “The book is a highly readable page-turner (I read it at one sitting) and the author seems to have a fine and incisive mind except in those instances where her cultural biases and prejudices come to the fore and her language descends to the level of the rag media instead of maintaining a scholarly tone”; (2) I have a strong feeling that she is a very good lecturer; (3) “The book also serves as a warning of future events and is an indication that all is not well in the state of Guyana”; (4) “Whatever it’s raison d’etre, it is undeniably an African perspective of Indian oppression and Indians should take careful note of its message”; and (5) “There is little to complain about and much to praise in the first two chapters” (relative to this last, we note that Gibson sets up the entire thrust of her argument in these two chapters … so where is Hackett really heading?)

What is more revealing in his response is the number of speculatives that bedevil him at the end of his lengthy contribution. For example, specific and direct denunciations like the one above exist alongside rhetoricals such as: (1) Would we have condemned this book if the author were an Indian?; (2) Will this book help to alleviate ethnic tensions or will it aid in further rupturing of the national fabric come 2006?; (3) What is the true purpose of Dr. Gibson’s book?; (4) Would this book have been written if the PNC were still in power?; (5) Why shouldn’t Africans speak out and care when Indians are being oppressed?; (6) Why shouldn’t Indians speak out and care when Africans are being oppressed?.

There are two interpretations to all this, namely: (1) The book has clearly caused the man to THINK … but he himself still denies that he is responding to it! … or; (2) He is just not secure enough to reach or articulate a conclusion by himself. He is, in Dr. Gibson’s words, playing safe lest the paternalistic system of dualism turns against him.

Next, Hackett tries the “peer-review” argument, which is not really an argument at all. It has been settled in the previous pages, but we quote now from Dr. Somdat Mahabir:...."

(The rest of "The Case for Scholarship in Kean Gibson's Book" is found at these locations: http://www.esnips.com/doc/eed7c023-00d5-4e93-9e51-7a5037aa7768/The-Case-For-Scholarship-In-Kean-Gibsons-Book or http://www.esnips.com/web/KeanGibsonsBook

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The online article "Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality, can now be found at the following locations:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY

2.

3.

Alternatively, readers can post messages to this board (with their e-mail addresses) requesting copies. I will respond as quickly as possible.

Arguments Against the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The online article "Arguments Against the Decriminalization of Homosexuality", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/8621777/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY , is now found at the following locations:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/8338517b-8958-4fb9-bc08-734be3328b19/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY

2.

3.

Alternatively, readers can post messages at this site (with their e-mail addresses) requesting .pdf copies. I will respond as quickly as I can.

The Case for Corporal Punishment in Guyana

The online advisory "The Case for Corporal Punishment in Guyana", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/255891/The-Case-for-Corporal-Punishment-in-Guyana , is now located at the following sites:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA
2.
3.


The "Introduction is appended below:

INTRODUCTION:

The reader will find that there is stunning correlation and agreement between the Judeo-Christian position on corporal punishment and enterprising, detailed and academically distinguished secular research. The position is also eminently consistent with the Ministry of Education’s current Manual of Guidelines for the Maintenance of Order and Discipline in Schools.

There are implications for this issue at the “Child-development” and “Adult” levels. As complex as the exercise is, this generalized treatment serves its introductory purpose. To achieve this end we should allow “snapshots” of expert opinion to speak for us.

It will be comforting to find out that what the Bible says in a few sentences is almost always inevitably borne out by unbiased scholarly research. The Christian position on Corporal Punishment is summarized at http://www.creationists.org/corporalpunishment.html. It is very clear, and summarized in full at pages 25-27 herein.

Readers are encouraged to do follow-up reading of their own for each of the articles cited and arguments used, and use the contact information on our cover page to provide comments and feedback to the through RogerWilli@Yahoo.com. These comments will be included in future editions.

There are usually two sides to every argument, and that the only sure way of ensuring that the truth prevails is to consider both sides openly and honestly … with scholarship, evidence and common sense coming together to accommodate objective, if not definitive, judgement on an issue.

The scholarship which supports the classic activity and perspective of the Church and Faith-Based-Organizations (FBOs) has been consistently left out of the pool of available information used in framing the role of corporal punishment in a range of measures to enable disciplined and productive child development. This Dossier seeks to correct that.

For example, the position of the David Benatar (http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm) speaks volumes:

“... In the first instance, my arguments, although lengthy, have been directed against a radical yet commonly held view -- that corporal punishment should never be inflicted. I have sought to show that this position is untenable, even though the arguments for it do show that frequent and severe physical punishment is morally wrong … My view is that the empirical data, insofar as I have understood them, are insufficient to defend the extreme view that physical punishment should never be administered ... ”.

The entire process and argument for the ban on corporal punishment has been characterized by deception. Nowhere has this deception been evident as in the misrepresentation of Benatar’s work. Benatar destroys seven of the myths the pro-ban crowd in Guyana have foisted on the Guyanese people:

1. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment leads to abuse”, and shows us why!
2. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment is degrading”, and rationalizes why!
3. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment stems from and causes sexual deviance”, and shows why not!
4. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment teaches the wrong lesson”, and rationalises why not!
5. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment necessarily injures authority relationships”
6. Benatar disagrees with the view “That corporal punishment does not deter” and outlines why!
7. Benatar disagrees with the view “That all the arguments above taken together fare better”, and rationalizes why not!

Benatar then outlines the case for limited corporal punishment as follows:

8. Corporal punishment punishes only the guilty!
9. Corporal punishment plays a significant role in the scale of punishments!
10. Corporal punishment is not a good in itself, but a good alternative/substitute to other punishments!
11. Child-rearing and parents’ liberty interests are protected!
12: Parental and academic requirements could be satisfied with the judicious use of five safeguards, namely: Infrequent pain without injury; Non-discrimination; Due process; Timing; other safeguards such as 1) the offences for which the child may be physically punished; 2) the implement used to inflict the punishment; 3) the number of blows; 4) the places on the body to which such punishment may be administered.

Parliament, and the Ministry of Education, is urged to rule against the attempt to ban corporal punishment.

Sincerely,
Roger Williams
Georgetown, Guyana
May-June 2007
(Please refer to disclaimer on page 4)

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Statement Rejecting Ban on Corporal Punishment in Guyana

OPEN LETTER TO POLITICAL/SOCIAL LEADERS IN GUYANA ON THE ISSUE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Dear Sirs/Ladies,

I greet you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

I refer to the Motion on corporal punishment tabled before the House on November 6 2006, and would register my concern about its apparent threat to established legal and constitutional structures, its apparent bias and misrepresentation, its apparent pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos, and its apparent assault on sovereignty. It is also anti-Bible, anti-Christian and anti-religious in its scope and intent, since it is directly opposed to established principle in various sacred texts. Finally, it is also dismissive of established and reputable secular and academic research.

This letter is accompanied by a Dossier, same also available by writing RogerWilli@Yahoo.com, or by accessing the online report at http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA .

As to misrepresentation:

Firstly, the Motion may be asking Government and Parliament to agree to something that it never envisioned when signing the Convention. We ask the House: “What does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have to say on the matter of ‘corporal punishment’?” It may be eye-opening to some that the Convention does not mention the term ‘corporal punishment’ at all. Ms. Chantalle Smith of the AFC, as well as the National Commission on the Rights of the Child (NCRC), are guilty of misrepresentation in implying that Guyana must consider the specific idea of “corporal punishment” as falling within the perspective, framework and intention of the original framers and signatories of the convention. Sections 2 and 5 of the Motion fail accordingly, lacking as they do specific legal and constitutional imperative. Given the evidence liberally supplied everywhere in the online dossier, this attempt at legislative sleight of hand is unworthy of our political representatives, and illustrates a casualness with factual detail that reflects poorly on the awareness of those initiating the Motion. I represent the other hidden issues in the words of Elder Lionel Persaud on pages 9-11 of the online Dossier. The implications are enormous. Not to consider them constitutes a misrepresentation of the issue by the authors of said Motion.

Secondly, the Motion seems aimed at imposing some extreme interpretations on the Convention as a means of promoting a somewhat ‘radical” social agenda. Sections 6 and 7 of the Motion illustrate the unacceptable analytical latitude taken in moving from the broad terms of the Convention to the campaign for “the abolition of corporal punishment”. The issue of “excessive latitude” is addressed in more detail using the words of Families First at page 15 of the online Dossier. I urge the House to recognize that nothing in Article 19 as stated in Section 2 of the Motion, and Article 28(2) (“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention”) should be considered as inimical to, or in any way destructive of, the generous provisions for the protection of other rights and cultural distinctives preserved in additional UN -Declarations and local legal/constitutional provisions, specifically: (a) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (b) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; (c) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (d) the right to freedom of religion under the provisions of the Guyana Constitution; (e) the rights, duties, privileges and responsibilities of parents; (f) the duties and responsibilities of caregivers and schoolteachers as currently and historically outlined by the local ministry of Education, and; (g) the careful distinction between lawful punishment and abuse already outlined by Guyana’s laws.

Indeed, I believe with Lionel Persaud that the guidelines for corporal punishment of learners set out on page 21 of the Guyana Ministry of Education’s “Manual of Guidelines for the Maintenance of Order and Discipline in Schools”, published in April 2002, adequately address this matter, and render Section 8 of the Motion (Resolution) contentious and unnecessary. These guidelines provide for corporal punishment to be administered by a Head or Senior Teacher, in appropriate circumstances such as fighting or gross insubordination, in an appropriate place, privately, on the hands or buttocks, with the appropriate instrument, cane or strap, and must be documented in the “Misdemeanour Book” the same day the punishment is administered. These provisions are in keeping with Guyanese traditions, cultural values and the dignity of our children and must be upheld by the Ministry of Education. This also is in keeping with the Convention itself which stipulates that the due account must be taken “of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child.” We in Guyana must interpret Articles 19 and 28 for ourselves and resist foreign interpretations which seek to impose values alien to our culture. Section 7 of the Motion is thereby of dubious legal merit.

As to a threat to established legal and constitutional structures, and an assault on sovereignty:

Thirdly, we should reject the implications of Sections 1-4 of the Motion that Guyana conceded sovereignty generally in any way, and/or specifically on the context of corporal punishment, with its accession to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (hereinafter CRC). The words of Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation on page 14 of the online Dossier are useful in advocating strongly that the U.N. Charter itself states that "Nothing contained [herein] shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." Indeed, a 1960 General Assembly Resolution states that "All peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory." It is further contended with Fagan that the Motion illustrates that the U.N.'s long-standing respect for the right of sovereign nations to set their own domestic policies has, as with this Motion, yielded to a new countercultural agenda espoused in U.N. committee reports and documents, particularly those relating to the implementation of the CRC.
Fourthly, I signal to the Government and Parliament of Guyana that, consistent with Dr. Mark Hartwig’s abundant outline of evidence on page 8 of the online Dossier, Section 5 of the Motion confirms the CRC’s threat to established legal and constitutional structures (in Guyana and elsewhere) on several distinct grounds. The issues outlined below are enough to evince caution at this time, and also if necessary to evince the two-thirds parliamentary unity necessary for the constitutional change needed to fend off the anarchy portended by the Motion:

1. It allows excessive breadth of interpretation;

a) The CRC allows committee members too much room to impose their own ideological agenda.
b) The committee chastised the (UK) government for allowing parents to withdraw their children from sex-education classes if the parents disagreed with what was being presented.
c) Precedence is given not to religion, culture, or the rights of parents, but to the committee’s ideological preferences— contrary to fundamental principles repeatedly affirmed in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2. It gives the Committee on the Rights of the Child virtually unlimited jurisdiction;

a) The CRC gives the committee a virtually unlimited mandate to insert itself in the affairs of a nation.
b) It can demand wholesale changes in a country’s legal system, education system, and social-welfare institutions
c) In fact, the lack of an enforcement mechanism is what gives the committee its broad reach. Any enforcement mechanism approved by the General Assembly would include provisions for due process and appeals—and would thereby limit the committee’s discretion.

3. It gives undue influence to special interests;

a) NGOs have consultative status at the UN. Examples of such organizations are International Planned Parenthood, International Save the Children Alliance, World Assembly of Youth, the American Psychological Association, and the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
b) Not only are these working-group meetings closed to government representatives and the public, but the committee may invite NGOs to join these deliberations.
c) This arrangement is ripe for abuse. It essentially allows groups that have a stake in the committee’s decisions to play a role in those decisions.

4. It undermines the legitimate role of parents:

a) The rights and duties of parents are consistently given the lowest priority.
b) The obvious role of parents as a frontline defense for their children is rejected in favor or some unspecified monitoring mechanism.”
c) By weakening these bonds of accountability, the convention weakens important restraints on selfish, hurtful behavior.
d) Allowing children to hide their activities also cuts the children off from their parents’ guidance and protection.

5. It advances policies that intrude on national sovereignty:

a) The government reports and committee recommendations give citizens and interest groups legal standing to sue their governments and force compliance with the convention.
b) Imagine the plaintiff in a lawsuit being able to meet privately with the jury before the trial, or a businessman joining a legislative committee to weigh a new law that affects his business. Such obvious conflicts of interest would never be tolerated in American law or politics. Neither should they be tolerated at the UN (or in Guyana).

As to the blind pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos

Fifthly, we would address the issue of the place of physical correction in the discipline of children. We use the words of Families First in its representation to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2003 to reject the point that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child considers the "reasonable chastisement" defence to be "a serious violation of the dignity of the child". At this forum, much as in/at the Ninth Parliament of Guyana, no supporting evidence was supplied to substantiate this view which appears to reflect a predetermined ideological commitment. In fact, we should point out that a generous amount of secular academic work and theological doctrine exists to the contrary. We point to pages 22, 25 and 27 of the online Dossier to illustrate the inadequacy and casualness with which the author of the Motion has treated this important issue. Families First goes on to illustrate that the UK’s equivalent of the NCRC went on to call for blanket legislation against all forms of physical punishment as a matter of "urgency" and suggests that corporal punishment is a negative and violent form of discipline. We point to pages 15 and 30 of the Dossier in dismissing this position. We further urge comprehensive review of the calamitous developments in Sweden and Trinidad documented on pages 6, 11 and 19 of the Dossier as further evidence in this regard. These developments, including a 519% increase in child-on-child assaults for Sweden, all occurred after “bans” on corporal punishment.

Therefore, on the basis of the experience of generations of parents and academic research findings, I join Families First in rejecting the notion that all forms of corporal discipline are negative and violent, and constitute a violation of a child's human dignity and physical integrity. We use the words of David Benatar at page 12 of the Dossier to show that no less than five safeguards (Infrequent pain without injury; Non-discrimination; Due process; Timing; and other Safeguards) can be generally applied to legitimize the application of corporal punishment in schools. Consistent with the Families First position, I am “…enclosing along with this submission references to our paper “Not Without Reason: The place of physical correction in the discipline of children”, which was submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in advance of its day of general discussion on "Violence against children within the family and in schools" in June 2001. This paper addresses the emotive language frequently employed by campaigners who wish to impose their own unproven philosophy on all other parents by force of law and draws on research findings which demonstrate the positive benefits of appropriate physical correction used in conjunction with reason and in the context of a warm relationship where the child is valued and cherished.” The document “Not Without Reason …“ is referenced at pages 13 and 16 of the online Dossier.

I should also mention that the highlighted annotation at the head of page 16 in the Dossier (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) has serious academic and moral implications, and I will supply evidence of this duplicity in the ongoing correspondence between Families First and the CRIN website by anyone writing to RogerWilli@Yahoo.com.

I believe that the failure of the Motion to bring the magnitude and scholarship of the opposing view, and its implications, to the attention of Parliament represents the blind pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos

As to bias, and a threat to constitutional provisions regarding freedom of religion:

I am mindful of the responsibility to provide perspective and clarity to the House, unlike the authors of the Motion.

Sixthly, therefore, the President and Members of Parliament will find that the online Dossier, distilled from hundreds of pages of research to a compact 30-page format, addresses the obvious bias in the Motion to the House.

The Dossier outlines alternative perspectives of approaching the idea of corporal punishment that corresponds with the view, both academic and spiritual, of a majority of Guyana’s population. It identifies the new imperative in the issue of corporal punishment, and with other social issues, as “Education & Information” rather than “abolition”. It presents corporal punishment as a meaningful and time-honoured part of an overall strategy to enable meaningful and productive child development. It illustrates that a liberal approach to child development, without being under-girded by the incentive of corporal punishment, is decidedly flawed. It shows that “corporal punishment” is a credible alternative/support to other strategies of discipline and child-development, and that a robust body of research-based knowledge and theological experience already exists to show that the concept has been effective. Finally, it demonstrates how corporal punishment has been put into good effect in relevant child- and adult-populations, and its relevance to Guyana’s unique circumstances.

We therefore conclude that corporal punishment is beneficial in schools when applied within the parameters of existing Ministry of Education guidelines, and the safeguards outlined. To the extent that any leeway given to the AFC on this Motion will portend a future attempt to ban corporal punishment altogether, I conclude further that it should be left to parents to determine disciplinary measures in the home. I call on the government and parliamentarians to legislate or defer accordingly.

The Caribbean (including Guyana) is an example of good family life and values. Discipline by authority figures is encouraged to be administered in an environment of affection. We must not import the failed model of other countries. In 2004, the Guyanese public was consulted on this very issue (http://www.corpun.com/gys00406.htm, and facilitated by a workshop run by the First Lady. The response from the majority, including a clear voice from our children, was a resounding "No" to the removal of CP.

Sincerely,

Roger Williams
Georgetown, Guyana
June, 2007
Disclaimer:

While this Open Letter and the online dossier is together styled as an "advisory" which any person/organization can choose to adopt, I stress that the text of the entire document has been screened to represent and reflect a purely personal opinion, and should not be construed at this time as the opinion of the Christian Community in Guyana or the respective churches or heads of churches that its members represent (I had styled another version as a more direct advisory to the Christian Community). While I have tried to be diligent in the editorial process, any typographical or constructional errors that take away from this are entirely my responsibility, and should be brought to my attention immediately. A public apology and correction will be offered immediately.

Roger Williams

Buju Banton: Boom Bye Bye's Inconvenient Truth, Part-2 ... The "Other" Words In The Song

Boom Bye Bye: An Inconvenient Truth Part 2 ...The “other” words in the song!
Context:
An investigation of the "other" words in Boom Bye Bye, illustrating that gay militants have latched on to controversial lyrics in the chorus in order to hide the devastating denunciation provided by the other words in the song!
Dear Editor,

Justin DeFreitas (KN 10/31/07) and Lutchman Gossai (GC 10/31/07) enter into a torrent of rage regarding the article “Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”: http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archieve%2030-10-07.html#Anchor-----------------14631). Justin DeFreitas’ “Song Incites Criminal Violence” allows for effective rebuttal.

They offer no facts, no countervailing evidence to the torrent of material offered in that article. As always, it is the ad hominem argument that is used in rebuttal, the subtle plea to ignorance, the deceptive semantic sand-dance of the intellectual snake. In extraordinary leaps of simple-minded effrontery, they infer that the article supports murder. Nothing could be further from the truth!

So this response is about the conceptual trap that they both walked into, because Part 1 (“Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”) was precisely structured so that persons would ask the question: “What does all of Buju’s song really say?

It will come as no surprise that millions around the world, after hearing Boom Bye Bye, did not go out and assassinate people. Buju has apparently failed miserably at that aim. So what, really, was Buju trying to convey … other than “gunplay” … that makes the song so astonishingly popular, and appealing, to the instinctive sense of truth for untold millions!

It will come as a surprise to many that it is the catchy “chorus” of “Boom Bye Bye” that gay militancy and DeFreitas has latched on to … in a desperate attempt to silence the two main verses of Buju’s outspoken song that illustrate great social and Christian truths. They have hitherto been artfully hidden by the “gunplay” outcry of the gay militant community, but are even more damaging to their cause if the song is allowed to be ventilated. The verses illustrate the innate wrong that homosexuality represents:

“.... (Two man) Hitch up on an rub up on … An lay down inna bed … Hug up on another … Anna feel up leg …”
“Don't want Jackie … Give dem Paul instead … Dem don't want di sweetness …Between di leg … Gal bend down backway … An accept di peg … An if it really hot … You know she still naw gon fled … A some man … Still don't want di … Panty raid … Pure batty business … dem love …”

“(Woman is di) Greatest thing … God ever put pon di land … Buju lovin dem from head … Down to foot bottom … But some man a … turn around … Where dem get that from … Peter is not for Janet … Peter is for John … Suzette is not for Paul … Suzette is for Ann … Where the bobocloth … Dem get dat from … Here come the DJ … Name Buju Banton … (Come fi …Straighten yuh talk?),,,,”


The science we refer to, and which DeFreitas denies so scornfully, is illustrated below, and illustrates the astonishing fact that what the Bible outlines in only a few sentences has taken us thousands of years to rationalize in various scientific journals. It is again astonishing that Buju Banton arrives intuitively at the same conclusions as these reports:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections....."

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Gossai’s arguments:

".... But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being ...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2clevenger.PDF). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. DeFreitas needs no “facts” for his letter, only innuendo, and the hapless gullibility of those who will not read!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University’s “Homosexuality: Truth Be Told” Law Review series (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc)

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of paedophilia ...."

Homosexuality is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong! … And it is in that sense only that Gossai should appreciate the raw metaphor of Boom Bye Bye.
DeFreitas and Gossai will not touch one word of the evidence quoted above … we can bet on that.

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
3rd November 2007

Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth: Why Buju Banton’s song irks Gay Militant Activists!

Context:
Gay militancy in Guyana has been frantic in October 2007 trying to propagandize Buju (Boom Bye Bye) Banton's "homophobia'. The evidence shows, however, that Buju has nothing to apologize for!
Dear Editor,

Recently, the popular website www.jamaicans.com featured advertisments about the upcoming Guyana Music Festival (October 27) in which some of Jamaica’s most outstanding musical sons would have participated.

Many members of the Guyanese gay-militant community, labouring under nebulous identities like "SASOD Members" and various unsigned letters in the Guyana press, have been frantic in the past month in their effort to propagandize the Festival, and Buju Banton, as “homophobic”. I would appreciate the opportunity to rebut on behalf of all the fans of Buju Banton, Beenie Man, and Christians generally.

I again submit that SASOD and gay militancy represents more of a clear and present danger to Caribbean democracy than Buju Banton and his lyrics ever will. There is another, more sinister, connotation to be adduced in terms of the wider cultural/racial issues that seethes just below the surface (or under the rug) of contemporary social debate in the Caribbean, but this has been better addressed in two other online articles: “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” and “Efforts to rationalize Hindu Nationalist Racism in Guyana and the Caribbean”. Who, exactly, we may ask, are the members of “SASOD”?

Indeed, Buju Banton ought to be commended for his outspoken position in “Boom Bye Bye”, even though it was written many years ago, and even as he may be unaware of the stunning scientific evidence supporting him.

Using the occasion of the “Guyana Music Festival”, SASOD's newest (but not unexpected) effort at destabilizing morality and the existing criminal law in Guyana is the ad hominem argument, in which sanctimonious outbursts are being used to appeal to sympathy, each occasion typified by a deliberate avoidance of anything factual that refutes their arguments. The "advice" given to the government in these letters is similarly deficient.
Christians and Caribbean citizens generally must now return to the facts, and offer the Minister of Home Affairs, the Police Commissioner, the Ministry of Culture, and the Governments of Guyana and Jamaica more meaningful information that will inform their discernment of who the real criminals are:

1. The recommendations by SASOD and others to restrict civil liberties like the right to freedom of expression, the right to work, and the freedom of association are typical of the action that gay militancy are now using to silence the opposition at any costs. The issue is adequately covered at sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 in the online article: "Annex A: An initial critique of Guyana's National Assessment" at www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf .

2. SASOD's is therefore a callous and cruel approach, since it indicates a willingness to sacrifice lives in protecting two activities (sodomy/homosexuality) that are medically dangerous, morally repugnant, disease ridden, whose population form a major risk factor for disease transmission in tandem with the bisexual cross over to the heterosexual population, and whose population has historically had a disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of syphilis, gonorrhoea, rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. (Kate Leishman, "AIDS and Syphilis", The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, Homosexual Politics, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, "Gay Times and Diseases", The American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men", New England Journal Of Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38; … as quoted in Roger Magnuson’s “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!")

The gay-militant community in activist-states has always tried to seize the health sector because of the above.

3. Dr. Judith Reisman, famous for her complete and thorough debunking of Alfred Kinsey's premises on human sexuality, including an expose' of his sexual torture of children to get his "results", has covered in generous detail the reality of the effort that is being used to indoctrinate the youthful population by SASOD and its affiliates. Her online law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” is found at 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002) http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.PDF.

She also introduces in that review the medical, statistical, legal and factual linkage between homosexuality and paedophilia. The implications are disturbing, especially her astonishing reminder on page 22 of the law review that:

".... To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the World AIDS Day artfully reports that 16% of adolescents with AIDS aged 13 thru 19 รข€¦ have been infected through heterosexual contact, rather than 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sexual abuse...."

Sounds familiar? What are the facts for Guyana, and the wider Caribbean? What does the "fact" of "60% under-reporting" make of the MOH/CDC claim that HIV-transmission in Guyana is spread "mainly" through heterosexual sex?

4. Dr. Steve Baldwin, in his definitive online law review "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" (14 REGENT U. L. REV.267 (2002): http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF) addresses the issue in greater detail.

What are the facts for molestation and disease directly related to the homosexual population in Guyana and the wider Caribbean, and the bisexual crossover? If SASOD would have its way, there would never be any quoted in these debates, and that for them would be a most satisfactory state of affairs. “Boom Bye Bye”, unfortunately, bursts that bubble with its inconvenient truth.

It is therefore a medical, legal, social and actual fact that SASOD and gay militancy represents more of a clear and present danger to Caribbean democracy than Buju Banton and his lyrics ever will. We ignore at our peril the subtle attack on democratic liberties, sound epidemiological responses, and the current criminal/employment law being peddled by special-interest gay-militant groups in the Caribbean. The Bible urges us to buy the truth and sell it not, so our choice is clear.

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
28 October, 2007

A Rebuttal of Vikram Seth's and Amartya Sen's Position on Gay Rights

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime!" ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail RogerWilli@Yahoo.com for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/CritiqueSONDAS720_120202.htm ). Readers should also peruse the article http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.
I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

".... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters", 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al has gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

".... But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia...."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
September 26, 2006

A Response To Vikram Seth's Open Letter

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime!" ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail RogerWilli@Yahoo.com for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/CritiqueSONDAS720_120202.htm ). Readers should also peruse the article http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.
I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement":( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

"....Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al has gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

"But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being"

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

"So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
September 26, 2006

Friday, June 26, 2009

Why the Motion on Corporal Punishment by the AFC is Harmful for Guyana

OPEN LETTER TO POLITICAL/SOCIAL LEADERS IN GUYANA
ON THE ISSUE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Dear Sirs/Ladies,

I greet you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

I refer to the Motion on corporal punishment tabled before the House on November 6 2006, and would register my concern about its apparent threat to established legal and constitutional structures, its apparent bias and misrepresentation, its apparent pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos, and its apparent assault on sovereignty. It is also anti-Bible, anti-Christian and anti-religious in its scope and intent, since it is directly opposed to established principle in various sacred texts. Finally, it is also dismissive of established and reputable secular and academic research.

This letter is accompanied by a Dossier, same also available by writing RogerWilli@Yahoo.com, or by accessing the online report at http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA (formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/255891/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA )

As to misrepresentation:

Firstly, the Motion may be asking Government and Parliament to agree to something that it never envisioned when signing the Convention. We ask the House: “What does the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child have to say on the matter of ‘corporal punishment’?” It may be eye-opening to some that the Convention does not mention the term ‘corporal punishment’ at all. Ms. Chantalle Smith of the AFC, as well as the National Commission on the Rights of the Child (NCRC), are guilty of misrepresentation in implying that Guyana must consider the specific idea of “corporal punishment” as falling within the perspective, framework and intention of the original framers and signatories of the convention. Sections 2 and 5 of the Motion fail accordingly, lacking as they do specific legal and constitutional imperative. Given the evidence liberally supplied everywhere in the online dossier, this attempt at legislative sleight of hand is unworthy of our political representatives, and illustrates a casualness with factual detail that reflects poorly on the awareness of those initiating the Motion. I represent the other hidden issues in the words of Elder Lionel Persaud on pages 9-11 of the online Dossier. The implications are enormous. Not to consider them constitutes a misrepresentation of the issue by the said Motion.

Secondly, the Motion seems aimed at imposing some extreme interpretations on the Convention as a means of promoting a somewhat ‘radical” social agenda. Sections 6 and 7 of the Motion illustrate the unacceptable analytical latitude taken in moving from the broad terms of the Convention to the campaign for “the abolition of corporal punishment”. The issue of “excessive latitude” is addressed in more detail using the words of Families First at page 15 of the online Dossier. I urge the House to recognize that nothing in Article 19 as stated in Section 2 of the Motion, and Article 28(2) (“States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention”) should be considered as inimical to, or in any way destructive of, the generous provisions for the protection of other rights and cultural distinctives preserved in additional UN -Declarations and local legal/constitutional provisions, specifically: (a) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (b) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; (c) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (d) the right to freedom of religion under the provisions of the Guyana Constitution; (e) the rights, duties, privileges and responsibilities of parents; (f) the duties and responsibilities of caregivers and schoolteachers as currently and historically outlined by the local ministry of Education, and; (g) the careful distinction between lawful punishment and abuse already outlined by Guyana’s laws.

Indeed, I believe with Lionel Persaud that the guidelines for corporal punishment of learners set out on page 21 of the Guyana Ministry of Education’s “Manual of Guidelines for the Maintenance of Order and Discipline in Schools”, published in April 2002, adequately address this matter, and render Section 8 of the Motion (Resolution) contentious and unnecessary. These guidelines provide for corporal punishment to be administered by a Head or Senior Teacher, in appropriate circumstances such as fighting or gross insubordination, in an appropriate place, privately, on the hands or buttocks, with the appropriate instrument, cane or strap, and must be documented in the “Misdemeanour Book” the same day the punishment is administered. These provisions are in keeping with Guyanese traditions, cultural values and the dignity of our children and must be upheld by the Ministry of Education. This also is in keeping with the Convention itself which stipulates that the due account must be taken “of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child.” We in Guyana must interpret Articles 19 and 28 for ourselves and resist foreign interpretations which seek to impose values alien to our culture. Section 7 of the Motion is thereby of dubious legal merit.

As to a threat to established legal and constitutional structures, and an assault on sovereignty:

Thirdly, we should reject the implications of Sections 1-4 of the Motion that Guyana conceded sovereignty generally in any way, and/or specifically on the context of corporal punishment, with its accession to the Convention of the Rights of the Child (hereinafter CRC). The words of Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation on page 14 of the online Dossier are useful in advocating strongly that the U.N. Charter itself states that "Nothing contained [herein] shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter." Indeed, a 1960 General Assembly Resolution states that "All peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory." It is further contended with Fagan that the Motion illustrates that the U.N.'s long-standing respect for the right of sovereign nations to set their own domestic policies has, as with this Motion, yielded to a new countercultural agenda espoused in U.N. committee reports and documents, particularly those relating to the implementation of the CRC.

Fourthly, I signal to the Government and Parliament of Guyana that, consistent with Dr. Mark Hartwig’s abundant outline of evidence on page 8 of the online Dossier, Section 5 of the Motion confirms the CRC’s threat to established legal and constitutional structures (in Guyana and elsewhere) on several distinct grounds. The issues outlined below are enough to evince caution at this time, and also if necessary to evince the two-thirds parliamentary unity necessary for the constitutional change needed to fend off the anarchy portended by the Motion:

1. It allows excessive breadth of interpretation;

a) The CRC allows committee members too much room to impose their own ideological agenda.
b) The committee chastised the (UK) government for allowing parents to withdraw their children from sex-education classes if the parents disagreed with what was being presented.
c) Precedence is given not to religion, culture, or the rights of parents, but to the committee’s ideological preferences— contrary to fundamental principles repeatedly affirmed in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2. It gives the Committee on the Rights of the Child virtually unlimited jurisdiction;

a) The CRC gives the committee a virtually unlimited mandate to insert itself in the affairs of a nation.
b) It can demand wholesale changes in a country’s legal system, education system, and social-welfare institutions
c) In fact, the lack of an enforcement mechanism is what gives the committee its broad reach. Any enforcement mechanism approved by the General Assembly would include provisions for due process and appeals—and would thereby limit the committee’s discretion.

3. It gives undue influence to special interests;

a) NGOs have consultative status at the UN. Examples of such organizations are International Planned Parenthood, International Save the Children Alliance, World Assembly of Youth, the American Psychological Association, and the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
b) Not only are these working-group meetings closed to government representatives and the public, but the committee may invite NGOs to join these deliberations.
c) This arrangement is ripe for abuse. It essentially allows groups that have a stake in the committee’s decisions to play a role in those decisions.

4. It undermines the legitimate role of parents:

a) The rights and duties of parents are consistently given the lowest priority.
b) The obvious role of parents as a frontline defense for their children is rejected in favor or some unspecified monitoring mechanism.”
c) By weakening these bonds of accountability, the convention weakens important restraints on selfish, hurtful behavior.
d) Allowing children to hide their activities also cuts the children off from their parents’ guidance and protection.

5. It advances policies that intrude on national sovereignty:

a) The government reports and committee recommendations give citizens and interest groups legal standing to sue their governments and force compliance with the convention.
b) Imagine the plaintiff in a lawsuit being able to meet privately with the jury before the trial, or a businessman joining a legislative committee to weigh a new law that affects his business. Such obvious conflicts of interest would never be tolerated in American law or politics. Neither should they be tolerated at the UN (or in Guyana).

As to the blind pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos

Fifthly, we would address the issue of the place of physical correction in the discipline of children. We use the words of Families First in its representation to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2003 to reject the point that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child considers the "reasonable chastisement" defence to be "a serious violation of the dignity of the child". At this forum, much as in/at the Ninth Parliament of Guyana, no supporting evidence was supplied to substantiate this view which appears to reflect a predetermined ideological commitment. In fact, we should point out that a generous amount of secular academic work and theological doctrine exists to the contrary. We point to pages 22, 25 and 27 of the online Dossier to illustrate the inadequacy and casualness with which the author of the Motion has treated this important issue. Families First goes on to illustrate that the UK’s equivalent of the NCRC went on to call for blanket legislation against all forms of physical punishment as a matter of "urgency" and suggests that corporal punishment is a negative and violent form of discipline. We point to pages 15 and 30 of the Dossier in dismissing this position. We further urge comprehensive review of the calamitous developments in Sweden and Trinidad documented on pages 6, 11 and 19 of the Dossier as further evidence in this regard. These developments, including a 519% increase in child-on-child assaults for Sweden, all occurred after “bans” on corporal punishment.

Therefore, on the basis of the experience of generations of parents and academic research findings, I join Families First in rejecting the notion that all forms of corporal discipline are negative and violent, and constitute a violation of a child's human dignity and physical integrity. We use the words of David Benatar at page 12 of the Dossier to show that no less than five safeguards (Infrequent pain without injury; Non-discrimination; Due process; Timing; and other Safeguards) can be generally applied to legitimize the application of corporal punishment in schools. Consistent with the Families First position, I am “…enclosing along with this submission references to our paper “Not Without Reason: The place of physical correction in the discipline of children”, which was submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in advance of its day of general discussion on "Violence against children within the family and in schools" in June 2001. This paper addresses the emotive language frequently employed by campaigners who wish to impose their own unproven philosophy on all other parents by force of law and draws on research findings which demonstrate the positive benefits of appropriate physical correction used in conjunction with reason and in the context of a warm relationship where the child is valued and cherished.” The document “Not Without Reason …“ is referenced at pages 13 and 16 of the online Dossier.

I should also mention that the highlighted annotation at the head of page 16 in the Dossier (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) has serious academic and moral implications, and I will supply evidence of this duplicity in the ongoing correspondence between Families First and the CRIN website by anyone writing to RogerWilli@Yahoo.com.

I believe that the failure of the Motion to bring the magnitude and scholarship of the opposing view, and its implications, to the attention of Parliament represents the blind pursuit of a dubious political agenda to the detriment of the national ethos

As to bias, and a threat to constitutional provisions regarding freedom of religion:

I am mindful of the responsibility to provide perspective and clarity to the House, unlike the authors of the Motion.

Sixthly, therefore, the President and Members of Parliament will find that the online Dossier, distilled from hundreds of pages of research to a compact 30-page format, addresses the obvious bias in the Motion to the House.

The Dossier outlines alternative perspectives of approaching the idea of corporal punishment that corresponds with the view, both academic and spiritual, of a majority of Guyana’s population. It identifies the new imperative in the issue of corporal punishment, and with other social issues, as “Education & Information” rather than “abolition”. It presents corporal punishment as a meaningful and time-honoured part of an overall strategy to enable meaningful and productive child development. It illustrates that a liberal approach to child development, without being under-girded by the incentive of corporal punishment, is decidedly flawed. It shows that “corporal punishment” is a credible alternative/support to other strategies of discipline and child-development, and that a robust body of research-based knowledge and theological experience already exists to show that the concept has been effective. Finally, it demonstrates how corporal punishment has been put into good effect in relevant child- and adult-populations, and its relevance to Guyana’s unique circumstances.

We therefore conclude that corporal punishment is beneficial in schools when applied within the parameters of existing Ministry of Education guidelines, and the safeguards outlined. To the extent that any leeway given to the AFC on this Motion will portend a future attempt to ban corporal punishment altogether, I conclude further that it should be left to parents to determine disciplinary measures in the home. I call on the government and parliamentarians to legislate or defer accordingly.

The Caribbean (including Guyana) is an example of good family life and values. Discipline by authority figures is encouraged to be administered in an environment of affection. We must not import the failed model of other countries. In 2004, the Guyanese public was consulted on this very issue (http://www.corpun.com/gys00406.htm, and facilitated by a workshop run by the First Lady. The response from the majority, including a clear voice from our children, was a resounding "No" to the removal of CP.

Sincerely,

Roger Williams
Georgetown, Guyana
June, 2007

Disclaimer:
While this Open Letter and the online dossier is together styled as an "advisory" which any person/organization can choose to adopt, I stress that the text of the entire document has been screened to represent and reflect a purely personal opinion, and should not be construed at this time as the opinion of the Christian Community in Guyana or the respective churches or heads of churches that its members represent (I had styled another version as a more direct advisory to the Christian Community). While I have tried to be diligent in the editorial process, any typographical or constructional errors that take away from this are entirely my responsibility, and should be brought to my attention immediately. A public apology and correction will be offered immediately.

Roger Williams

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/403587/Why-the-Motion-on-Corporal-Punishment-by-the-AFC-is-Harmful-for-Guyana )