Saturday, July 18, 2009

Rebuttal to Michel Sidibe' & UNAIDS on 377 judgement by New Delhi High Court

Kaieteur News of July 9, 2009,
"The Delhi High Court Decision Should Be Rejected, not Lauded"
Dear Editor,
The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe (Kaieteur News 8/7/09) is disturbing in its whimsical disregard for science, medicine, the extant law, and the truth. It can be rebutted on several distinct grounds, each of which illustrates that Sidibe has taken the unprofessional step of arguing his case with innuendo rather than fact.
In taking the opposite posture, our approach offers the detail and evidence that all citizens need to make responsible personal and corporate decisions.
Earlier, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned “A Departure FromProfessional Conduct” ; . There, in a strange fascination with the “Yogyakarta Principles”, del Prado had madethe similar mistake of implying that there were not good medical, legal,moral and societal reasons for criminalizing homosexuality.The arguments to the contrary in “A Departure from Professional Conduct”still hold, and, if you look closely, Sidibe has carefully sidestepped everyone of them.
The first and obvious response to Sidibe is that most PLWHA-treatment in Guyana and the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, and that the focus of any effective epidemiological response
needs to be behaviour modification, not accommodation!
Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, New Delhi's activist High Courtruling, already being challenged in India's Supreme Court, represents a shot in the arm for the tired arguments usually spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” afterthe astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; ). There, the people simply got fed up with “court decisions” that pilfered their traditional values and democratic principles, and voted down yet another effort to redefine marriage, this being the holy grail of“ the decriminalization” crowd.
We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolution on Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” ( The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition and action at the grassroots, an entire swathe of gay-rights “victories” are being engineered not in the polls where the people have a voice, but in activist courts and legislatures, and by executive order. This is a slap in the face for voters, and all done in the name of “human rights!
Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the terms “OAS” and “UN” in response to Sidibe, it will surely come as a surprise to readers and voters in Guyana and the Caribbean that this specious argumentation being resuscitated by Sidibe was in fact being peddled in selfsame short-measure by CARICOM’s PANCAP as recently as 2008. Hopefully, we had provided Guyana and the Caribbean with enough material in the online summary “Arguments Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization ofHomosexuality” ( to show the error of that particular effort.
It gets worse. What do current US-indicators tell us about this “glorious” development in India?
Sidibe' denies the fact of MRSA infection, and its affinity 19 times greater for homosexual populations. David Ostrow is in not as inhibited, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be “fascinated”with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…Thephysiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural.The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tearsthe rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety ofother physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate therectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massiveimmunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering varietyof opportunistic infections….” (David Ostrow et al, eds., “SexuallyTransmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co.,1982; as quoted by Roger Magnuson). Note … the science has not changed in 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric.
Sidibe' denies the obvious and gigantic paradox … that homosexuality therefore needs entiremedical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries hasalways targeted the health sector, or its Ministers. But medical fact does not supplant “human rights” in Sidibe’s world.
Sidibe is careful to point out that his, and UNAIDS’, motives lie in the“fight against HIV/AIDS”. To the extent that a key strategy of the gay-rights and gay-militant lobby has always been to blur and confuse thelines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing gay rights", then his comments are disingenuous. Jusith Reisman, who destroyed Kinsey’s abysmal outlook on human sexuality, documents the devious ploy by gay activists to “use” HIV/AIDS” as a “marketing tool” to achieve theirpolitical goals. Sidibe’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” ( ): “... According to Kirk and Madsen, “AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establishourselves as a victimized minority ....” Reisman goes on "…. To hide the fact thatmost AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the “World AIDSDay” artfully reports that “16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19. . . have been infected through heterosexual contact…,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse.
To place this last grievous medical sleight-of-hand in perspective, Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S.population, “…. homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s casesof syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( KateLeishman, “AIDS and Syphilis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21, as quoted by Roger Magnuson). The point? Homosexuality needs medical brigades to justify its space, andthat’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or homosexuality's links to psychosexual violence and pedophilia!
The final words defining Sidibe’s caricature of the Indian High Court ruling, then, belong to lawyer Roger J Magnuson. These words would constitute important advice for unsuspecting, na├»ve third world populationsi nfatuated with UN rhetoric: “…. The political proposals advanced by anincreasingly aggressive group of gay activists … merit and demand seriousdiscussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals haveoften received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matchedby a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a highlevel of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate….”(Roger Magnuson; "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!", p. 137).
Magnuson would go on to document that “…during the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - theannual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500%….” The CDC's 2004 figures showremarkably consistent HIV=infection rates among MSM, in glaring counterpoint to Sidibe’s figures.
What are the facts for the Caribbean? India? What can we reasonably expectwith decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons forthe criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself insocially and personally destructive ways, then what does?
The decriminalization of homosexuality accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses. And a Delhi High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!
Roger Williams

No comments:

Post a Comment