One year ago (Feb. 15, 2010) we had cause to write the local and regional press with the appropriately captioned story "Cross-dressing and GBLT deception and manipulation have to be addressed by the judiciary". The edited version was posted by Stabroek News at its website as "Sasod Should be Rejected Yet Again" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/02/17/sasod-should-be-rejected-yet-again/ ) on February 17, 2009. Nothing has since changed!
One year later, Stabroek news now carries the unfortunate story with the triumphant-sounding caption "Historic Constitutional Motion Filed Against Cross-dressing Law" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/02/23/historic-constitutional-motion-filed-against-cross-dressing-law/ )
But there is nothing "historic" about this development, except the tragedy in deception and manipulation that it inevitably represents. The tactic to try to use the courts to circumvent the will of the people through the voting/referendum process is not new.
The really uplifting moment in the debate one year ago came when Noleander Toussaint, a 17-year old student, pronounced definitively on the issue in the article "What the People say about Cross-dressing being an offence" ( http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/features/02/16/what-the-people-say-about-cross-dressing-being-an-offence/
We have offered before that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”. The activity of the one group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other! Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about who or what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing” that sasod is addressing, it is trying to gain a toe-hold of legal ground to represent gay, bi-sexual, lesbian and transgender issues.
So we have sent the online summary "The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality" ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ) as a friend-of-the-court brief to the Guyana bar Association, the Bar associations of every territory in CARICOM, the Attorney General in Guyana, and the Attorneys-General in CARICOM.
The letter of February 2009 is repeated verbatim below, and it should be noted that its principal arguments remain unchallenged by sasod or any sector of a complicit media.
"... The Stabroek News headlines its Sunday February 15th edition with the claim “Cross-dressing case points to ‘selective discrimination – law should be repealed, SASOD says “. I would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. We should be relentless in the effort to present to the Guyanese public the formidable evidence stacked against sasod.
Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson’s general perspective is being roundly supported by those who appreciate the overwhelming evidence. Further, whereas her detractors are citing hot air and precious little else, the evidence in recent (2002) law reviews supports her conservative outlook.
The law DOES exist for good social, moral, legal and societal reasons … and those relating to sexual offences and improper conduct have not been invalidated by the passage of time. The Guyanese people, and Melissa Robertson, will find that science, and the law, is very clear relative to the debate that will follow.
The feeding frenzy initiated by SN’s careless caption in the main ignored the negative social policy implications of sasod’s arguments. The evidence offered in part below will support an inevitable conclusion: A behaviour-based group masquerading as a “minority” cannot usurp the value-system of entire nations without challenge. Lawyer Roger Magnuson makes the undisputed point: " …. The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate…." (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”, p. 137)
Readers will find that the only reasoned statement the SN-article seems to be that of Priya Manickchand, who, in an abundance of caution, appears to urge nothing less than a referendum addressing the question: “Given the legal, social and moral evidence to the contrary, does Guyana really want to follow the trajectory of tragedy other nations have taken regarding gay militancy and “sexual orientation”?”
It is clear that mere brio and hot emotion will not settle this issue, and Christians and other Guyanese will be pleased to find that the secular evidence supports their religious/moral positions. On the other hand, the arguments of gay militancy are suffused with deception and a cruel agenda to manipulate those trapped in Same-Sex Attraction Disorders. Readers have immediate access to three sources for a quick introduction to the issues:
First reading should be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). The following excerpt is instructive:
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
“…. Essential to the homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuals are fighting for basic civil rights denied them by an oppressive society. This argument strikes a sympathetic chord among many Americans, whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at the truth about homosexuality and the political goals of the “gay rights” movement shows that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority, that opposition to special legal protection for homosexuality is not bigotry, and that extending such protection is dangerous to individuals and society….”
Secondly, readers should realize that Guyana and the Caribbean recently dodged the bullet regarding the “decriminalization” craze that is currently being forcefully argued by gay militancy around the world. There seems to be an abysmal ignorance of the truth regarding the destructive social policy implications involved in these efforts, and we must start the debate now. Readers should assess the article “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ). Sasod’s puerile arguments about the “victimless” nature of “sexual orientation” cases is dealt with at pages 21,23 and 24. Read also the dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia on pages 25-35. In particular, the following comments should be helpful:
“….“This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 30 above)
“…. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people ….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 32 above)
Finally, almost unnoticed by the Guyanese voting public, Guyana ’s Permanent Representative to the OAS, Dennis Moses, made an astonishing vote on June 3 2008 “on behalf of the Guyanese people”. The incredible fact here is that all Christian and conservative groups were banned from lobbying the politicians at the OAS-event, and, despite up to four requests to respond to the article “Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution” ( http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-resolution-on-human.html ), neither Dennis Moses nor the OAS has responded to the issues raised therein.
An elitist snobbery seems to have replaced concern for the people’s questions in regional institutions. This is no substitute for good social policy. Instead of recommending repeal of very pertinent legislation, the Chief Magistrate should order prosecution and defence to prepare a judicial review of the 2002 law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002, http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) and other such current reviews cited at page 18 of “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” . This would clear the air appreciably.
Magistrate Robertson would be pleased to find that her comments about “confusion” are also raised in the psychiatric community. She should peruse the 2001-article by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf . An excerpt follows:
“….To some, this approach may sound reactionary and anti-gay, antisexual, anti-freedom. Rather, for those men who seek an alternative to the gay lifestyle, this is progressive treatment. Indeed, many men have found these ideas to reflect a truth they sense within themselves. This approach acknowledges the value of gender difference, the worth of family and traditional social values, and the importance of the prevention of gender confusion in children….”
Sasod and their supporters would, again, be found to be actively trying to deceive the Guyanese people. They should be rejected yet again...."
February 25, 2010