RogerWilli

The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana

2010-03-03T21:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by Antoine Craigwell (KN 26 2 10) captioned “Cross-dressing in Guyana; Is the Supreme Court Courageous?” and would appreciate the opportunity to respond. This response is copied to Guyana’s Attorney-General, the Guyana Bar Association, and the Bar-Associations and Attorneys-General of the Caribbean.

“Friend-of-the-Court” Briefs:

We have already dispatched correspondence to the Attorney-General of Guyana advising our interest in having the online document “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” be considered as a friend-of-the-court brief in relation to the constitutional motion filed by sasod! The document is 44 pages long, and addresses the wider issue of GBLT-militancy in general.

To satisfy the need for a more reader-friendly document for citizens, parliamentarians, the media, Guyana Teachers’ Union, Guyana trade Union Movement, and members of the Guyana Bar Association, this 10-page brief summarizes the major issues on transgenderism, and is also forwarded to the Attorney-General.

As introduction to the issues confronting Guyana and the Caribbean today, readers should also note the response in a Stabroek News letter “Nothing ‘Historic’ About Cross-Dressing Constitutional Motion in Guyana” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27559391/Nothing-Historic-About-Cross-dressing-Constitutional-Motion-in-Guyana ) and a second response to questions raised by a “UG-student” in the Kaieteur News letter “Laws Against Homosexual and Transgender Activity Exist for a Number of Good Reasons” (http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/02/27/laws-against-homosexual-and-transgender-activity-exist-for-a-number-of-good-reasons/ ) to show the consistent application of principle against transgenderism and gay-militancy.

Definitions:

Please refer to “Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion -- Sexual Behavior Disorders”; http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

Why are the legal requirements for “human-rights” legislation”?

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 whom or what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing”, but rather seeking legal footholds on all Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT) issues, including homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

As to the fallacy of strategy that the GBLT is wont to pursue, essential reading is the book by lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89):

“… As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination?

Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances.

To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …

(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …

(3) … causing substantial injury …

(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …

(5) … which has no element of moral fault …. ”

Transgenderism and gay-militancy fail on these criteria! The real tragedy may well be that sasod never alerted its constituents to the public policy implications that their decision would have.

Again, to the extent that there is proximity, please note the following words of Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia in their online article “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” (http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ):

“… 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….”

After reading Regier & Garcia’s treatment, and given the legal, social, medical 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”? Seven clear rebuttals apply to Craigwell’s letter!

Pit religion against religion? ... Or go to referendum?

Firstly, Craigwell’s letter is memorable for the number of factual misrepresentations it makes, and also for confirming that, from a religious standpoint, it will be Hinduism that drives the local effort for the GBLT community, and that such initiatives will be diametrically opposed to Christian, Muslim and most secular outlook here in Guyana. We should mention that the official Hindu community has not commented on Craigwell’s letter at February 28, 2010, and maintains an expected silence.

That this current initiative will therefore involve an intense, and perhaps gory, clash between local religions should not be lost on the government and the judiciary. If we needed proof of that effort to pit religion against religion, then we had to look no further than the now dated and hopelessly biased and one-sided statement by Arif Bulkan, one of the lawyers representing sasod in this current constitutional motion:

“… In Guyana, as in the rest of the Commonwealth Caribbean, we inherited as part of the colonial legacy, Judeo-Christian (and) Islamic homophobia and anti-sexuality attitudes which found expression in laws that criminalize private sexual behaviour between men and certain acts relating to commercial sex work…” (“National Assessment on HIV / AIDS, Law, Ethics and Human Rights in Guyana”; by Arif Bulkan; Page 4, paragraph 3; 2004)

Apart from illustrating scant regard for the tenets of two major faiths in Guyana, the above statement confirms Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s contention that most current research on GBLT-issues has abandoned solid clinical evidence and research and is now conducted from an “advocacy” or pro-GBLT perspective.

However, the evidence will show that Guyana’s Supreme Court has ample legal, medical, societal and personal reasons to reject the petition by sasod, and, further, that the court would be wise in not generating inter-religious acrimony among Guyanese citizens and take the safe path of referring the issue to referendum later.

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 of that treatment. Read also the dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v Texas on pages 25-35. In particular, the following comments should be helpful in illustrating that an emotional and ad hoc approach to interpreting the law has serious repercussions:

“…. 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 of “Arguments Against Pancap …” 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 of “Arguments Against Pancap …” above)

What are the practical repercussions that Guyana can immediately foresee?

Secondly, consistent with our submissions in 2007 captioned “Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court Legal Disaster” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-gay-rights-laws-would-court.html ) Valerie Leung (25/2/10) poses the following commentary to the Guyanese plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers and judges, and anyone else who would listen, or who would be tempted to listen to Craigwell’s romanticized version of chaos and social degeneracy:

“… I noted with grave concern a recent report in the Stabroek news that SASOD has brought a case before the courts in Guyana in which they claim that it is unconstitutional to prosecute cross-dressing. The nation should be made aware that this is a slippery slope.

Besides, I wonder if the very lawyers who are representing SASOD would like to have any of their male staff, lawyers included, arrive at work dressed as a woman, or meet clients or attend court dressed as a woman, and not be able to prevent this. This is actually how it is in California.

If, for example, you hire a man who is in male attire and a few days after he commences employment he comes to work dressed and made-up as a female, you can not dismiss him or even require him to dress as a man while at work. As far as I have heard there is a hefty fine for any employer who dares to do this.

Would the judges who will hear this matter, or employers in general, like to live in a Guyana where it is normal and acceptable to have male bank tellers, teachers, MPs, mayors, etc; dressed in pearls and lipstick and skirts while at work if they so desire? In a few jurisdictions in the US the majors are openly cross-dressers and go to their offices in mini-skirts, etc;!! …”

With these words, we infer that Craigwell’s reasoning will reach its illogical end in a futuristic free-for-all of societal chaos. That it is much closer that we thought in other jurisdictions is clear. The article “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“… Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized…”

Transgenderism as Gender-Identity/Mental/Psychosexual Disorder

Thirdly, Craigwell clearly ignores the evidence in the scientific community about transgenderism being a gender-identity and mental disorder. Now, societal affirmation of transgenderism as “normal” will inevitably lead to clamours for sex-change operations as in the American experience.

We should refer the court to the testimony of a University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, in 2005, as he makes a fatalistic pronouncement on the tragedy that this represents (“Transgenderism is a Gender-Identity Disorder; Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder” found at http://www.pfox.org/Transgenderism_is_gender_identity_disorder.html ). At the beginning he asks a deeply worrying question, illustrative of the fact that even our most academically qualified citizens have an innate awareness of the significance of creation-structures such as manhood and womanhood:

“… When the practice of sex-change surgery first emerged back in the early 1970s, I would often remind its advocating psychiatrists that with other patients, alcoholics in particular, they would quote the Serenity Prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was the term they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things that could be changed? …”

Towards the end of that treatment on ‘Surgical Sex’, we find these disturbing words: …

“… Reiner, however, discovered that such re-engineered males were almost never comfortable as females once they became aware of themselves and the world. From the start of their active play life, they behaved spontaneously like boys and were obviously different from their sisters and other girls, enjoying rough-and-tumble games but not dolls and “playing house.” Later on, most of those individuals who learned that they were actually genetic males wished to reconstitute their lives as males (some even asked for surgical reconstruction and male hormone replacement)—and all this despite the earnest efforts by their parents to treat them as girls. …”

It gets worse! Dr Paul McHugh, the author of that report, goes on to make this cataclysmic pronouncement:

“… We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it. …”

What is to be learned from Proposition 8 and the Delhi High Court decision:

Thirdly, it was in fact the Delhi High Court that passed the decision to repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, but Craigwell sees no discomfort in not making that distinction, and this validates our previous contention that the arguments of the GBLT community and gay-militancy are constructed upon a colossal web of half-truths and misrepresentations. Opposition to the ruling by the Delhi Court is still very strong!

We have already detailed the case against the Delhi decision in the online article “The Delhi High Court Decision should be Rejected, not lauded!” (http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/09/the-delhi-high-court-decision-should-be-rejected-not-lauded/ ). Part of that fateful document reads:

“… Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm for the tired arguments spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ).

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 “decriminalization” crowd.

We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutions on Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition 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! …“

Transgenderism simply a subset of unconstitutional “Sexual-Orientation” issues/arguments

Fourthly, transgenderism DOES in fact relate to “sexual orientation” issues (however camouflaged as “gender’ in the current constitutional motion), and lawyer Roger J. Magnuson offers to Guyana’s Supreme Court that to go further in supporting GBLT and/or “gay rights” ordinances, “anti-discrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation of the sort sasod wants would be to court the following legal disasters (cited in “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy” by Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon , 97266 ; 1990; Pages 98-100):

(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 (GBLT) rights ordinance:

* 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.

Using Transgenderism/Gender-Identity-Disorder to further gay-rights and gay militancy

Fifthly, it will not escape the attention of readers that the situation that Magnuson is so clear at defining above now becomes the issue of tyrannical court behaviour in the first decade of the 21^st century … “tyrannical” in the sense that judges are now wont to make law rather than interpret the constitution, or to understand that the will of the people in referendum or voting is to be respected.

Again, we have offered before (page 2) that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”… and it bears repeating. The activity of the one group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other! Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about whom or what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing”, but rather legal footholds on all Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT) issues, including homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The intersection all comes together in the stated goals of the gay militant agenda … these have always followed the “rights” argument!

Source: (Gay Pride March on Washington DC April 25, 1993)

1. Demands for the repeal of all laws regarding sodomy!

2. Demands for the legalization of all forms of sexual expression including paedophilia!

3. Demands to change the age of consent to allow sex with minors!

4. Demands for public funding to cover Aids patients medical expenses!

5. Demands for public funds to cover sex-change operations!

6. Demands for the legalization of same-sex marriages!

7. Demands for legalization of adoption, custody and foster care within the same-sex marriage structure!

8. Demands for the inclusion of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders in education and childcare!

9. Demands for public funding of artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals!

10. Forbid religious (now artistic) concerns regarding homosexuality from being expressed … already the case on radio/TV in Canada (and now England). This is done through “anti-discrimination” and “hate-crime” legislation.

11. Ban prayer in public schools.

12. Remove God from civic life!

13. Demands that the Boy Scouts and Army be required to accept homosexuals!

The use and abuse of the judiciary as a vehicle to these long-term ends has been legendary, and the motion ostensibly aimed at cross-dressing is a first shot at that goal as Craigwell freely admits. The issue has been the source of much worry in the courts overseas during that time, and it behooves us to learn from their experience. It is clear to see the trajectory of initiatives that sasod is committed to with this motion.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense Of The Controversy!”; p.93 – 102) has, as a lawyer, documented the insidious pursuit of these goals that led to the misguided decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s unusual request then to read his dissent to the Supreme Court in the USA:

“… One long term goal of the homosexual movement has been to repeal laws prohibiting sodomy. Although gay rights activists have concentrated on promoting gay rights ordinances, they have not abandoned their attack on existing sodomy statutes. As long as their behaviour remains criminal, it is hard for them to argue that that they deserve special protection for it. When challenging sodomy statutes, homosexuals argue that there is a “right to privacy” in the Constitution that protects private acts of consensual sodomy.

In making that argument, homosexuals rely on cases that interpret the Constitution as forbidding government interference with private decisions. And so, for example, a consensual “right of privacy” has been held to protect decisions about education and child-rearing, marriage, and more recently contraception and abortion [Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade 410 US 1113 (1979)]. Homosexuals have argued from these cases that just as the law cannot unconditionally forbid a couple to use birth control, it cannot forbid two consenting adults to commit sodomy in the privacy of a bedroom [Oklahoma City School Board v. National Gay Rights Task Force 727 F.2d1270 (10^th Cir., 1984; US, 1985)].

Although homosexuals had some initial success in state and federal courts using such arguments, the Supreme Court settled the question in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 US 186, 1986). Mr. Hardwick had bought suit in federal district court, challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia statute that criminalized consensual sodomy. He lost at the district court level, but won on appeal to the Court Of Appeals, which held that the Georgia statute violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court disagreed. In a vigorously written opinion, Justice White pointed out that any fundamental liberties protected by a right to privacy must be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, or deeply rooted “in the nation’s history and tradition.”. Because sodomy was traditionally a criminal offense in all states, to find that a right to engage in anal or oral sodomy was deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition or is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” would be “at best facetious”. Summing up, the Court said:

“And if Respondent’s submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult to , except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest and other sexual crimes, even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Burger pointed out the moral dimension:

“To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Justice Burger’s opinion paralleled a recent circuit court decision from the District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals which had approved the discharge of a homosexual from the military. Finding homosexuality “a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed traditionally condemned,” the court held that its decision would be based on constitutional principle, not on shifting public opinion [Dronenberg v. Zech 741 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir., 1984)].

Such federal decisions have left homosexuals two options: convince state courts that there is a right to commit sodomy under the state constitution, or convince legislators to repeal the statute.

Because homosexual activists have been unable to convince the courts that their sexually deviant behaviour should be given special protection, they have tried to work harder on Congress, state legislatures, and city councils. The passage of gay rights laws would inevitably lead to the repeal of sodomy laws….”

We would similarly find transgenderism to be “a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed traditionally condemned” and thereby urge Guyana’s Supreme Court to “base its decision on constitutional principle, not on shifting public opinion!” Neither is the law “archaic”, since it still addresses compelling social and medical issues!

It would be prudent at this stage to remind everyone of the stunning similarity between the above account for the USA and the current push for the transgender issue in Guyana. Thereafter, however, it is also apposite to refer to the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, quoted earlier above, on transgenderism as gender-identity and mental disorder:

Should laws be passed to “protect” transgenders from “discrimination”?

“… Legal protection against discrimination based on mental illness is not provided for any other disorder. Those who wish to assume a “gender identity” contrary to their biological sex are in need of mental health treatment to overcome such disturbed thinking, not legislation to affirm it.

“Gender identity” legislation endangers the physical and mental health of the very people it is trying to protect. Physically mutilating the mentally ill is not the answer. For example, will healthy limb amputation, another mental disorder known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), be the next protected class? (See Newsweek story: http://www.newsweek.com/id/138932 )

Nor should we encourage men and women to consume life-long hormones in a daily battle to overcome their natural biology. Hormones cannot change the chromosomes that determine one’s sex.

Abolishing gender and making believe it doesn’t really matter for the rest of the population is also not the answer.

One goal sought by gay groups is to ensure that transgenders of all types have legal access to the public bathroom of their choice, regardless of their actual birth sex. See http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf This can make public bathrooms and dressing rooms unsafe for women and children. It is a huge step backwards for women’s rights.

After disrupting their bodies with radical surgery and hormone pills, transgenders approach PFOX for help in leaving the transgender lifestyle. They need funds for gender affirming therapy, reversal surgery, and breast explants.

If legislators want to protect transgenders, they can start by giving them the therapy they need….” ( http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

Do parents know that sasod is targeting teenagers for homosexual/transgender relationships?

Seventhly, we should consider that Ras Ashkar has already been brave enough to point out to Guyanese parents that sasod has over the past two years been actively targeting their teenage sons and daughters at its website with the euphemistically labeled URL “The Experimenting Teenager”. This would be considered “expected” behaviour but for the galling farce of innocence that the group presents to what has up to now been a very tolerant public. Sasod’s entire website is dedicated to promoting gay rights!

How can they any longer be as tolerant? Sasod is playing them with one hand and stabbing them … and their children … in the back with another!

Guyanese parents would be similarly distressed to find that of the only two male appointees to the nation’s Rights Of the Child Commission, one (Vidyratha Kissoon) owns the sasod website and the other (Kwame Mckoy) has been implicated in a sex-tape scandal soliciting sex from a male minor.

How does one place this rather disturbing state of affairs in perspective? Perhaps the following will help!

Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ); 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002) illustrates the imperative that should guide entire national policies:

“… 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… ”

And it is in this context that sasod’s misadventure into politicizing our courts with the relatively easier “target” of cross-dressing needs to be understood.

It gets worse … as Judith Reisman outlines below … and Guyana’s courts will have to thereby note the implications of giving anything away to the GBLT community!

If promiscuity and pedophilia defines the psychosexual disorder known as homosexuality (being “Gay” in the GBLT community) then the implications for its decriminalization, like that for transgenderism, has taken on new and staggering proportions when assessed against the increasing cases of abused children being affected with HIV in the USA and other developed nations.

The other law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman,( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ) will illustrate the grave obstacles Guyana’s courts will later have to contend with deriving from sasod’s innocent motion:

"… Perhaps the most worrisome of these anti-science activities has been the limited amount of governmental research examining the connection between early child sexual abuse and pediatric AIDS. Dr. Laura Gutman, a respected child sexual abuse researcher, and her colleagues found in their preliminary government funded studies that 14.6% of children in the study with AIDS had "been sexually abused . . . . Transmission by child sexual abuse was the most frequent of the proven modes of acquisition of HIV in this population."

Twelve males were identified (n=8) or suspected (n=4) of being perpetrators. The lack of funding for such studies may deserve a congressional inquiry. 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 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse…."

Consider thereafter the following commentary on transgenders and Gender-Identity-Disorder (GID):

“… There is a strong correlation between sexual abuse and GID. According to one counselor, “80% of the transgenders he’s treated were molested as children. Transgenders also suffer from feelings of rejection and enter into a fantasy life…” “The diagnosis of GID is itself a changing diagnosis since some children diagnosed with GID may later in life display few, if any, symptoms….” ( Source: “Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion -- Sexual Behavior Disorders”; page 4 of 7’ http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

These persons so afflicted need treatment, not legislation to protect or affirm a civil wrong.

Conclusion:

Armed with the evidence above, Section 153(1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02, takes on a new character.

It does NOT appear irrational, discriminatory, undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. In effect, it serves a good and useful purpose in maintaining the national ethos.

Mandatory treatment of psychosexual and gender-identity disorders would seem a better option than “affirming” the condition via legislation.

We 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….”

The words of Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia need to be repeated here:

Sasod and their supporters would, again, be found to be actively trying to deceive the Guyanese people.

They should be rejected yet again!

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams, Georgetown, Guyana, March 1^st 2010

Nothing 'Historic' About Cross-dressing Constitutional Motion in Guyana

2010-02-27T04:04:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,

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...."

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
February 25, 2010

Mahadeo Panchu's Atheism, like Darwinism, begins and ends with ... nothing!

2010-01-11T09:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter captioned “Dawkins’ Book has been hailed by churchmen and reviewers” (SN 11/01/10) and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut!

Mahadeo Panchu now confirms what others like Surujbally had been loathe to admit ... that McDonald's abortive piece represented nothing less than an attempt to illustrate his own convictions ("... reservations concerning the existence of a supernatural being ..."), and that he expected no one to question his motives, or his sources.

McDonald clearly wasn't just saluting Dawkins’ scholarship, but was selling us his own atheistic basket of fake goods while ignoring the opposing view!

What is now clear is that these pathetic defences of Ian McDonald's obvious self-indulgence seem to be getting shorter and shorter ... the only option apparently left being not to present new evidence, but to engage in the semantic defeatism of phraseology such as "... Thoughtful churchmen and reviewers have hailed Dawkins’ "The God Delusion" as a splendid contribution to national thought..."

It should not escape Panchu's rather unfocused and indeterminate logic that even more "thoughtful churchmen and reviewers" have hailed the Bible as a BETTER contribution to national thought. In our own context, Psalms 14:1 and Proverbs 14:34 would be effective starting points in the search for a national ethos!

As far as an “ethos” goes, atheism begins with nothing and ends with … nothing!

So, in another seamless moment of 'splendid' intellectual confusion, Mahadeo Panchu proves another point that Dawkins made: "... Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ..."

Sorry, Mahadeo, it gets worse! McDonald's torment ... or delusion ... is a function, and a result, of his own choices about whom he chooses to believe, as readers can judge for themselves in the unedited version of the original submission "I have to believe! ... a response to 'rationalist' Ian McDonald" (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/12/i-have-to-believe-response-to.html ).

McDonald went to church on Christmas Eve 2009 CHOOSING to believe the "Dawkin Delusion" that he has been fed, and ignoring the natural and Biblical evidence to the contrary.

If he claims ignorance to this "evidence", and CHOOSES to ignore both Nature and the Bible, then Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" may be a good start for his return to mental and emotional stability. Then there is always Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ!". It will all lead back to the Word of God!

These exchanges hinge on the presentation of appropriate evidence, and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. That being the case, Mahadeo, Jonathan Wells sums up Dawkins' "contribution" rather well, don’t you think, at page 8 of 8 in the online article "The Survival of the Fakest" ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf )!

Yours faithfully
Roger Wiliams

January 11, 2010

Eco-Imperialism: Guyana's fateful misadventure into Norway's "Copenhagen Alternative"

2010-01-09T13:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,

Patrick Pereira's view of Guyana's disastrous position under the recently-signed "Norway Agreement" in a recent 5-page advertisment is a truly astonishing analysis … and has many of us scrambling to play 'catch-up'!

The online article is found at http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/letters/01/06/patrick-pereira-speaks-out-on-mou-with-norway/ and is captioned in the print media as "THE NORWAY – GUYANA M.O.U: AN INSULT TO PRESIDENT JAGDEO AND TO THE PEOPLE OF GUYANA"

I remember having the same sinking feeling in my stomach years ago as I came to grips with the implications of Section 5 of the Lausanne Covenant (Christian Social Responsibility).

Are we now in the realm of "eco-imperialism" in Guyana?

And is President Jagdeo still in control given the horrible mix of issues represented by rampant Brazilian mining adventurism, leftist Western politics and environmental activism, debilitating corruption and racist intrigue locally ( see "Greed, Genocide ... and Now Green: Corruption and Underdevelopment in Guyana" ) and the fact that he has been recently pushing “investment from the Arab Middle East”?

Pereira's analyses ... and accusations ... suggest that he is not, and go far deeper than that!

He accuses the administration of President Bharat Jagdeo of a mixture of duplicity and social-policy recklessness and naievety that will have enormous detrimental effects on Guyana's future, destroy the hitherto peaceful existence of its citizens, and a perfectly healthy mining industry ... all the while using the indigenous Amerindian population as pawns, and possibly having its end-game in reserving the oil-potential off Guyana's coast for a select few.

His analysis, as yet unanswered directly by the President or his army of local spin-doctors, raises a lot of questions ... chief among which is "How does any sane person or government propose that a miner must wait 6 months for permission to cut down a tree in the process of mining?"

Were our planners asleep at the wheel when the Norway Agreement went down? Was there even any systematic institutional planning here?

Or was this debacle the result of one man's grotesque egotistical plunge off the Kaieteur Falls as he was caught up in the heady throes of "being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize"?

Was the CRNM/CARICOM consulted before the Norway MOU? This especially after President Jagdeo went after its then head after the EPA issue with the EU?

Somehow, US $250 million doesn't sound so rosy now!

And if Bharat Jagdeo wanted a legacy, he will now probably have it! It would be that he ... or his ego ... fell for Norway's carrot hook, line and sinker!

1. But what is eco-imperialism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-imperialism )

“… Eco-imperialism is a term coined by Paul Driessen to refer to the forceful imposition of Western environmentalist views on developing countries. The degree to which this occurs is a topic of debate, as is whether such imposition would be ethically justifiable. In his book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death[1], Paul Driessen argues that like the European imperialists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, today’s eco-imperialists keep developing countries destitute for the benefit of the developed world…”

“… Some commentators maintain that eco-imperialism has a racial dimension, and occurs when environmentalists place the well-being of the environment over the well-being of humans, particularly non-whites, living in developing countries. Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality has argued that European Union restrictions on the use of the pesticide DDT to combat malaria are killing ‘black babies’. Environmental historian Ramachandra Guha has accused ‘authoritarian’ biologists of valuing the protection of endangered species over the well-being of local people in India and other developing countries…”

2. What are some of the anticipated consequences of eco-imperialism?

See “Eco-imperialism’s Deadly Consequences” ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104889,00.html ) … written 6 years ago in response to Paul Driessen’s book. The arguments are grim, and contrast drastically with the sudden and rosy promotion of an “LCDS” strategy in Guyana ... while paradoxically offering one explanation of why malaria is still rampant in Guyana:

” … Driessan’s book isn’t limited to global warming and third world energy problems. The chapter “Sustainable Mosquitoes — Expendable People” describes the ongoing tragedy of the eco-activist crusade against DDT.

“Our family and community are suffering and dying from [malaria], and too many Europeans and environmentalists only talk about protecting the environment,” says 34-year old Ugandan businesswoman with malaria. “But what about the people? The mosquitoes are everywhere. You think you’re safe, and you’re not. Europeans and Americans can afford to deceive themselves about malaria and pesticides. But we can’t,” she added.

The Ugandan woman is only one of more than 300 million annual victims of malaria in the third world. Between 2-3 million die every year. “Over half the victims are children, who die at a rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day — the equivalent of 80 fully loaded school buses plunging over a cliff every day of the year,” explains Driessen.

Despite this ongoing public health horror story, the United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, Greenpeace, Pesticide Action Network, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility and other eco-imperialist groups oppose the use of DDT — the only practical solution to the malaria crisis. The eco-imperialists’ disturbing attitude toward the third world is perhaps most frighteningly described by Robert S. Desowitz in another must-read, “The Malaria Capers,” (search) (W.W. Norton, 1991).

Desowitz reports a U.S. Agency for International Development official named Edwin Cohn as saying, “The third world didn’t require a healthy labor force because there was a surplus of workers; better some people should be sick with malaria and spread the job opportunities around.” Even more bluntly, Cohn reportedly said people in the third world were “better [off] dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”….”

And the final instalment to this worsening debacle seems to be the following comment by Germany in a Reuters news article on July 24th 2009:

" ... Germany called a French idea to slap "carbon tariffs" on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of "eco-imperialism" and a direct violation of WTO rules..."

Were our local planners asleep at the wheel when the Norway Areeement went down?

Was the CRNM/CARICOM consulted?

Between Jagdeo's apparent egotistical blunder, the German comment and Patrick Pereira's analysis, somehow US $250 million doesn't sound as rosy now!

Perhaps we all need to read more ... if only because Periera shows us how we have literally been handed thirty pieces of silver for the thirty-thousand odd pieces that meaningful exploitation of our natural resources represented!

Can President Jagdeo ever look the CRNM/CARICOM personnel in the eyes again?

And is this what is meant by "achieving our continental destiny"?

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

I have to believe! ... a response to "rationalist" Ian McDonald

2009-12-26T17:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor,

I refer to Ian McDonald's piece "I try my best to believe" (SN Dec 20, 2009), and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut.

Without realizing it, Ian McDonald himself becomes the "rationalist" (albeit whimsically, perhaps self-pityingly ... and certainly fatalistically so ... ) in this astonishing piece of self-indulgent agonizing.

This is a 'nothing' piece, one that did not have to be written! Was this done simply to show us that he was "well read"? Is this Ecclesiastes 1:16 working itself out?

The last time we saw such a gross attempt to feed self-indulgence to the masses (you will know the pieces by their inevitably anti-Christian, grandly defeatist, or subtly racist undertones) was when BC Pires tried to denigrate CARICOM's idea of the "Ideal Caribbean Person" ( http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-bc-pires-on-ideal-caribbean.html ; and the rebuttal to Stabroek News at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-stabroek-news-on-ideal.html ).

Whether or not it was intended, McDonald now writes a treatment in hopelessness and despair that surely must now baffle his fellow churchmen.

Now the first reason we have to disagree with his fatalism is the fact that NOWHERE in his treatment does he refer to the logic and comfort of the Bible, or of the finished work of Jesus!. Is this Ecclesiastes 1:16 again working itself out?

He speaks instead of "the truths of poetry", and "stories told on his mother's knee". The compass is clearly skewed, and rather than tasting Dawkins' mess to see if it is real (he says "...I suffer when I read their books ..."), Ian in his distress will do well to return to the unambiguity of the Bible, say, in Proverbs 2:1-15:

Pro 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
Pro 2:2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
Pro 2:3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
Pro 2:4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Pro 2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Pro 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Pro 2:7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
Pro 2:8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
Pro 2:9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
Pro 2:10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
Pro 2:11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:
Pro 2:12 To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;
Pro 2:13 Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness;
Pro 2:14 Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked;
Pro 2:15 Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:

We will find that Proverbs 1:20-33 also has an answer for McDonald's belief in "the truths of poetry", his apparent high "regard" for Dawkins, and his so subsequent agony and despair ... as the "poetic" lines below testify:

Pro 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
Pro 1:21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
Pro 1:25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
Pro 1:27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Pro 1:28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
Pro 1:30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Pro 1:31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
Pro 1:32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
Pro 1:33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Proverbs 1:26 (read 1:24-31) above is instructive to Ian's torment, as is Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 (verse 16 will compete to be Ian's loudest claim to fame, and perhaps explains his claim of a (sic) " ... growing tide of God-denial which is emptying churches and trying mightily to suck dry the wells of belief ..."):

Ecc 1:16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

Perhaps he speaks for himself, for the Catholic Church, or for the Church of England, because the attendance at all evangelical locations throughout England and Guyana on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day 2009 will be truly spectacular!

And if all else fails, Ian is welcome to try to "rationalize" or "poeticize" Psalm 14:1 ... the first part.

Because others like Dawkins have tried to deny the existence of God before ... and ultimately failed. We did not need "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf ) or Jonathan Wells' "Survival of the Fakest" ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf ) to prove that they have descended to the depths of academic depravity and skulduggery to so do!

Why must we ask Ian to read Jonathan Wells above, in particular? Because at page 8 of 8 we find this astonishing remarks about Richard Dawkins, the object of Ian's fascination:

“… Oxford Darwinist Richard Dawkins, though not writing in a textbook, puts it even more bluntly: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” …

“… These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it as though it were science. In science, all theories – including Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence…”

Perhaps the next item on McDonald's reading list should be Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ"!

Ian will find that the wisdom of this world ... Dawkins' world of "rationalism" ... turns out to be foolishness with God. His real wisdom ... and comfort ... will begin with the fear of God, not in the rationalizing of God's existence, or reading Dawkins' works to that end ... when he has the Bible to search out instead!

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
December 26, 2009

Burrowes, Lall, City Hall and Hypocrisy: Guyana’s Auditor-General Report for 2006

2009-08-10T20:50:00.000-07:00

Context: This is a rework of a similar article appearing in the Kaieteur News on August 3, 2009 ( http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/20... )

Dear Editor,

I refer to the article "Burrowes city probe finds widespread financial irregularities " (SN August 1, 2009) and would be grateful for the opportunity to comment. Even though the article is chock full of innuendo and noticeably bereft of money-sum detail, I again sense that the time may well have been reached when the best among us should speak out!

We should immediately note the stunning hypocrisy that Minister Lall's comments in the above article represent.

For the first time we actually have a Minister's comments about what SHOULD follow an indictment of any agency by the Auditor-General. Lall's candour is welcome. The implications are enormous.

Hopefully, a national conversation on the phenomenon will also be facilitated through the article: "Greed, Genocide ... and now "Green": Corruption and Underdevelopment in Guyana" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17958657/Greed-Genocide-and-now-Green-Corruption-and-Underdevelopment-in-Guyana )

Some issues arising from the SN-article above:

1. Why was a Commissioner necessary after the detail of the Auditor-General's indictment? Unless Burrowes was being used as a political football to intimidate non-government-friendly municipalities in the run-up to local-government elections, it follows that the Minister's comments signal that a Commission(er) is going to be appointed to investigate every Ministry/Department similarly indicted by the Auditor-General's report. There is no shortage of candidates in that regard!

But is this a realistic expectation in the face of smothering hypocrisy by the Bharat-Jagdeo government in Guyana, given what is by now seen throughout the Caribbean as a complete failure in leadership and credibility? With almost every passing day, a Minister in that grouping distinguishes himself/herself with arrogance, insincerity and/or corruption that is “ruinous to the state”. The latest laughable instalment is the decision to “institutionalize” polygraph testing in the Public Service … while excluding every cabinet functionary from such scrutiny. Since no credible organization (we have suggested Interpol and the FBI) is effecting these polygraphs, the government may have found another way to rid itself of ‘undesirable” professionals who dare to oppose them! No appeals are possible, or recourse to the court!

2. Will Commissioner Burrowes, considering the “excellent” job that Minister Lall says he did at City Hall, now turn his attention to explaining with similar efficiency why the GPHC (Guyana Public Hospital Corporation), which is now a separate entity from his (Burrowes’) employer the Ministry of Health, continued to use that Ministry’s cabinet approval (funds) to purchase drugs and medical supplies from specialized agencies both local and overseas, and why $608.4 MILLION of Ministry funds was spent on medical supplies which the GPHC cannot account for?

Or why the Minister of Health (suddenly) cannot be polygraphed even though he was the last one to leave the Ministry of Health before it was gutted by fire recently?

3. Would Commissioner Burrowes offer his professional opinion on the Minister’s comment that “ … one of the ways to ensure financial efficiency was to have strict adherence to the annual budgets…” and analyze this against the fact that the Auditor-General has accused that same Minister’s cabinet of presiding over “political gifts” to Ministries, Departments and Regions that resulted in “… the miscellaneous receipts of $2.053 BILLION at December 31, 2006 being understated by an undetermined amount...” That same Auditor-General would have advised Minister Lall and Commissioner Burrowes, courtesy of his 2006-report, that his cabinet has not seen fit to transfer the sum of $7.190 BILLION, representing balances held in 13 special accounts, to the Consolidated Fund. Who is accessing, and utilizing, these accounts?

It gets worse. According to the KN-synopsis on the AG’s report, “ … the Contingencies Fund continued to be abused, with amounts drawn from the Fund being utilised to satisfy expenditure that did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Act …”

4. Finally, that same Auditor-General would have advised Minister Lall and his cabinet that, relative to "… strict adherence to the annual budgets …", the Bharat Jagdeo government would have elicited the following comment: "...the old Consolidated Fund bank account was overdrawn by $46.906 BILLION at 31 December 2006 ..."

If Commissioner Burrowes or Minister Lall cannot, or are instructed not to, respond to these and other anomalies relating to their functions as public servants, then they need to be reminded that: “…The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMA Act) provides for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget, the receipt, control and disbursement of public monies, and the accounting for public monies, and is the most vital legislation governing the transparent and efficient management of the finances of Guyana….”. In other words, Mr. Burrowes and Mr Lall must now be very proud men … or very confused ones! They both are members of institutions that are in flagrant violation of the Act!

We are presiding over a crisis in leadership and credibility in Guyana … and a stunning hypocrisy evident in the disdain for the welfare of entire segments of the population! An entire social policy is apparently being formulated on the nebulous framework of "keeping certain people in their places"…whatever the social cost, and however biased the machinery. As a policy initiative, this borders on lunacy, or, if not that, the deliberate orchestration of national discontent and resentment. To what end?

Quite unlike Burrowes' self-serving journey into City Hall intrigue, the Auditor-General’s report for 2006 in the main gave us an insight into the " … widespread financial irregularities …" perpetuated by Guyana's government ... but will anything come out of it? The only clear thing transmitted by Minister Lall’s comments is that every municipality in the " … local government system …" NOT supporting the government will be targeted by erstwhile "Commissioners" ... while those toeing the line will be left unscathed.

This is the definition of hypocrisy!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
August 3, 2009

Greed, Genocide ... and now "Green": Corruption and Underdevelopment in Guyana

2009-07-31T21:03:00.000-07:00

Greed, Corruption, Narcotics, Torture, Fire, Race … and now "Green": Guyana’s potent linkages to Underdevelopment
July 27, 2009

As a mostly silent world looks on, and as CARICOM diligently turns a blind eye to the escalating evidence of Guyana’s manufactured social, political and economic crisis, the “torching” of the Ministry of Health just before a pending and potentially cataclysmic audit by the Auditor-General offers new clues as to how degenerate the political climate has become. This is the fifth government building so “destroyed” with all its paperwork and files.

For Health Minister Leslie Ramsammy, already implicated by a US-court in the Shaheed “Roger” Khan issue (see “Genocide in Guyana … The Tip of the Iceberg?”), we should offer five viewpoints that place the Auditor General’s Report for 2006 in perspective. A synopsis of that Report is appended below.

First, Kean Gibson in her iconoclastic review “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana” pointed to the strange local phenomenon of “good thieving” and “bad thieving” to describe the astonishing rape of national and institutional coffers under the party associated with President Bharat Jagdeo. She also coined the phrase “corruption that is ruinous to the state” in that regard (see “The Marginalization of Persons of African Origin in Guyana” and “The Case for Scholarship in Kean Gibson’s Book”. The Guyana government used ethnic and other bias in its tightly controlled Ethnic Relations Commission to try to have the book “removed from public places”.

US. State Department Reports on Guyana for several consecutive years point to “corruption at the highest levels of government”. The Bharat Jagdeo-led government in Guyana dismiss these claims as “false”.

The Commonwealth Adviser Sir Michael Davies points to the systematic destruction of Guyana’s parliament as the highest decision-making forum in Guyana in “Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005”. He reiterates his findings in the report “Addendum to the Needs assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005”

The Guyana government dismiss these claims as “false”.

The UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall points to acts of racism that could just as easily have come from the story of the deprivation of India’s 300 million Dalits in the report of the UN Human Rights Council: “Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall : addendum : mission to Guyana (28 July to 1 August 2008)”(27 February 2009, A/HRC/10/11/Add.2, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49bfa6ec2.html ).

The Bharat-Jagdeo government dismisses these claims as “false”.

World-renown Guyanese economist Dr. Clive Thomas speaks to the “criminalization of the state” under the tenure of a Bharat-Jagdeo-led administration that has literally squandered 17 years of local and international goodwill:

“…. Guyana needs intervention at the macro/national, intermediate/meso and the micro/local levels, Thomas said. He listed, "the superficiality of national unity, the dynamics of racial arithmetic and insecurity and the unrelenting rise of both benign and militant extremism." Guyana's predicament, he said, was compounded by the depth, scale, complexity and sheer persistence of economic misery and the growth of the narco-economy. He added that the country's entrenched totalitarianism in a multiracial society combined with territorial threats and the criminalisation of the state all played their part. Thomas asserted that Guyana's political and social crisis could not be solved without the intervention of the international community in the broader sense of creating the foundation for some resolution. "Just as our development problems are so acute that we cannot solve them without the support of the regional and international community, similarly, our political crisis requires this type of intervention." Asked to expand on the term `structural deadlock' during the debate that followed his remarks, Thomas alluded to the government's initial objections to the symposium and their attempts to review presenters' papers prior to actual presentation....”(Source: Dr. Clive Thomas: "International Conference on Governance, Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution," Georgetown, Guyana February 2004)

The Bharat-Jagdeo government dismisses these claims as “false”.

And so, finally, a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) that begs the outside world to pour more funds into Guyana’s gaping wound … or else the pockets of those who are convinced that they are destined to rule Guyana forever!

By is this feasible since, given the abundance of evidence, one can easily detect a massive accounting frenzy designed to leave the country bankrupt by the time there is a change of government?

And now, below, a synopsis of the Auditor-General’s Report for 2006 … illustrating why the LCDS may be doomed before it began... because of the very real possibility that while government functionaries will end up with $60,000,000 houses (carbon credits or not), the vast majority of the people will probably get ... nothing!

Roger Williams
July 2009

"2006 Auditor General’s report states Govt. abuses public funds … Billions unaccounted for..."
August 8, 2008 By knews Filed Under News:
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2008/08/08/2006-auditor-general%e2%80%99s-report-states-govt-abuses-public-funds/

"... Despite the fact that the Auditor General Report for Guyana came in one year late, it has proved to be very revealing.

The report on the audited public accounts of Guyana and on the accounts of ministries, departments and regions for the year ending December 31, 2006 has verified a complaint by the Parliamentary Opposition parties regarding the Contingencies Fund.

According to the report presented to the National Assembly by the Auditor General, the Contingencies Fund continued to be abused, with amounts drawn from the Fund being utilised to satisfy expenditure that did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Act.

“According to the statement, amounts totalling $3.945 billion were drawn from the Fund by way of 138 advances….As at 31 December 2006, forty-nine of these advances, totalling $1.721 billion, remained outstanding.”

The report, which was made public yesterday, after it was presented to the Speaker the previous week, also noted that amounts totalling $579.438M were shown as contingent liabilities for entities that were no longer in existence, yet the Ministry of Finance and the Accountant General’s Department have still not taken steps to have these liabilities transferred to the public debt.

As regards the affairs at Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD), the Department continued to request, and was granted, blanket waivers to award contracts selectively. This selective tendering was done without the requisite pre-qualification of contactors and the invitation of at least three contractors to bid for these contracts.

The Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation was also cited on the executive summary, and caused raised eyebrows.

According to the Auditor General, GPHC, which is now a separate entity from the Ministry of Health, continued to use the Ministry’s Cabinet approval (funds) to purchase drugs and medical supplies from specialised agencies both local and overseas.

$608.4 M SPENT ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES. HOSPITAL CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASES

“It did not re-tender or obtain a new no-objection from Cabinet for the purchases of drugs and medical supplies…Further, during 2006, amounts totalling $608.406M were expended on drugs and medical supplies…However, the corporation could not totally account for drugs and medical supplies purchased, since there was no central point of accountability.”

In relation to Customs and Trade Administration, the Auditor General noted 17 Permits for Immediate Delivery (PID), with a total value of $2.832 billion, had not yet been perfected at the time of the audit in January 2007.

Incoming vessels at ports in Guyana totalled 1,089. However, completed ship’s files in respect of 243 ships were not submitted to the Quality Review Section, and as such, were not made available for audit examination.

$11M PAID FOR ARMS, AMMO IN 2003, YET TO BE DELIVERED

In relation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was noted that a quantity of arms and ammunition, to the value of $11.160M, which were paid for in 2003, had not yet been delivered, nor has the Ministry been able to recover the amount paid.

It was also noted in the report that several ministries and departments also recorded overstatements on their appropriation accounts, and the unspent amounts have not been refunded, “…Subvention agencies not returning the unspent portions of amounts paid over to them for specific expenditure.”

The Auditor General also cited in his report what he called the overpayment of contracts.

“Several Ministries and Regions have not recovered amounts overpaid on various contracts in prior periods….In addition, some of these Ministries and Regions, such as, Education, Amerindian Affairs, Regions Two, Three, Six, Seven and Ten continued to have overpayments on various contracts during 2006…One such example was recorded under the Ministry of Education, where $10.982M was overpaid on eleven projects which were mainly for the rehabilitation and extension to schools.”

$13.6M SPENT ON HIRING VEHICLES FROM A PERSON HIRED AS A MAID

In relation to the Guyana Defence Force, it was noted that the Force continued to hire vehicles from a civilian and members of the Force. During 2006, one hundred and one payments, totalling $13.697M, were expended on hiring of vehicles owned by one civilian, who is employed as a maid, and nine members of the Guyana Defence Force.

This was a serious breach of the regulations, which strictly prohibit sponsoring of tenders for Government contracts by Government Officers.

Gifts also raised eyebrows, with the Auditor General noting that the continued lack of reporting and accounting for all gifts to Ministries, Departments and Regions resulted in the miscellaneous receipts of $2.053B at December 31, 2006 being understated by an undetermined amount.

As it relates to bank accounts, several transfers from other accounts to the Consolidated Fund were not effected, and several accounts had overdrafts.

This was documented as follows:
Transfers not effected
(i) The amount of approximately $7.190 billion, representing balances held in 13 special accounts;
(ii) The balance of $34.336M held in the General Account
(iii) The balance of $527.139M held in Non-Sub Accounting Ministries and Departments’ Bank Account
(iv) The balances of 66 inactive bank accounts, of which eight had balances in excess of $100M.

(b)Accounts with overdrafts were identified in two categories:

- the old Consolidated Fund bank account was overdrawn by $46.906 billion at 31 December 2006; and
- Forty-two inactive accounts had overdrafts totalling $685.991M. Of these accounts, 24 were overdrawn by amounts in excess of $1M.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMA Act) provides for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget, the receipt, control and disbursement of public monies, and the accounting for public monies, and is the most vital legislation governing the transparent and efficient management of the finances of Guyana.

According to this Act, a number of Public Accounts Statements are required to be prepared and submitted...."

A Response To BC Pires on the "Ideal Caribbean Person"

2009-07-19T17:47:00.000-07:00

Response to BC Pires’ “Ideal Caribbean Person”

September 28, 2008

Dear Editor,

I have finally had the time to read the “Thank God It’s Friday” piece in the Trinidad Express for September 12, 2008. One inescapable conclusion is that … there is an awesome, throbbing, horrible emptiness in the mind and work of BC Pires. It is especially evident in his grotesque piece “The Ideal Caribbean Person”

This truly is the desperate banality of a deskbound hack, a nine to fiver who found himself with lots of spare time, no ideas to justify the pay grade, and an easy target in fifteen lines of a CARICOM communiqué. Do a Google search on “Ideal Caribbean Person” to see how far he missed the mark!

I had hoped against hope that the source of inspiration for Stabroek News’ editor, in his ridiculous commentary of the same name on September 26, was something so truly profound and inspiring that we would all be forced to retract, to concede, and to beg the forgiveness of an inspired columnist’s vision. I was disappointed! Contrary to Stabroek News, it is not only our bureaucrats (sic) who generate pronouncements of meaningless, pseudo-intellectual drivel.

What we got from BC Pires was an insipid attempt to hock the unsellable, another attempt to pawn fake goods. We got from BC an attempt to imply that CARICOM’s crafting the idea of an “Ideal Caribbean Person” somehow translated into a failed attempt to fashion a new Magna Carta, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, or some such other product of astonishing advertising poppycock like “Rally Round the West Indies”. Is this for real?

It would be laughable if it were not in black and white … and perhaps is reflective of a deeper, more sinister manifestation of anti-CARICOM rhetoric that seems to be infecting liberal Caribbean media-personalities these days. Look at their photographs closely!

At best, it is cheap trickery aimed at personal aggrandizement and assuaging delusion. In essence, however, it attempts to belittle the work of hundreds of the best minds in the region as they struggle to bring order and success, to keep alive a vision of unity that many of the current crop of regional heads of state seem incapable of comprehending.

Who, exactly, is BC Pires, and what has he done for Caribbean integration lately? We recounted (see http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/deadly-storm-of-rhetoric-in-guyana.html ) the sad fact that convenient memories now forget that it has been the strong and steady support of a unified CARICOM that has kept Venezuela, Suriname and possibly Brazil off Guyana’s territory. More recently, CARICOM’s support was evident in the UNCLOS and UNITLOS ruling on Guyana’s maritime border with Suriname. What of the CCJ, or CSME in 2015.?

But Pires would have us believe that CARICOM’s worth should be measured in hotel bills. This is the classic manifestation of the cake-shop mentality alluded to for Stabroek News, and the convoluted thinking of an intellectual leprechaun. He hides his diseased outlook with a “nonchalant” reference to the “Good Negro” and “pappyshowing”. We know his kind well … BC’s own citation of “res ipsa loquitur” … the thing speaks for itself. His own words condemn him!

Stabroek News’ editor, incapable of forming an opinion of his own, validates the inanity of BC Pires as “brilliant satirical wit” without bothering himself with the necessary trouble of reflective thinking. I now see where he got his “what’s the real difference?” quip from. I repeat that this is plagiarist insensitivity and intellectual incompetence at its worst, adequately argued at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-stabroek-news-on-ideal.html .

So, we conclude for BC as we started for Stabroek News. An elitist segment of the Caribbean population seems to have declared war on CARICOM ... for all the wrong reasons. If we must offer a critique of CARICOM and its institutions, then let's focus on the factual evidence (there is plenty available), not sophistry … or nonchalant racism!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

September 28, 2008

A Response To Stabroek News on the "Ideal Caribbean Person"

2009-07-19T16:58:00.000-07:00

Defending CARICOM: A Response to the Stabroek News’ Editorial “Ideal Caribbean Person”!
September 26, 2008

Dear Editor,

I had alluded previously to the dangerous and culturally toxic rhetoric that now pervades the social and political athmosphere in Guyana, and had hopefully addressed some of its recent EPA-driven manifestations in "A Deadly Storm of Rhetoric in Guyana About CARICOM and the EPA" (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/deadly-storm-of-rhetoric-in-guyana.html )

But now, an astonishingly crude effort at editorship (using as its foundation another article by one BC Pires in the Trinidad Express) raises the ante even further. Not since the debacle of its sinister and racist "Cockroaches" editorial has the Stabroek News exhibited this degree of chicanery!

An elitist segment of the Caribbean population seems to have declared war on CARICOM ... for all the wrong reasons. If we must offer a critique of CARICOM and its institutions, then let's focus on the factual evidence, not sophistry.

Without reading BC Pires’s treatment, I had to read this SN editorial of Friday 26th September 2008 several times over. For good reason. The editorial clearly outdistances any of the recent event-reactive gibberish that usually flows from the pen of some of our Editors, and sets new standards of pettifoggery and witlessness.

It seems to effortlessly achieve its reckless launch … by validating someone called BC Pires without bothering itself with the necessary trouble of reflective thinking. This is plagiarist insensitivity and intellectual incompetence at its worst.

I promise to read BC Pires later and comment appropriately, but am very glad that I skipped immediately to the Caricom-webpage to see what the furore was all about. My initial reaction (to the CARICOM descriptive) was very positive!

One sincere conclusion is that this SN editorial is testimony to the cake-shop mentality that has replaced erudition in our society today, and the generous nonsense that has replaced the capacity to abstract, and to articulate a higher ideal.

I almost gagged when I saw that the SN Editor had replaced CARICOM's lofty effort at disavowing abortion and war (”… imbued with a respect for human life since it is the foundation on which all the other desired values must rest…”) with the careless and infantile insinuation of “… we think that the ideal Caribbean person is someone who loves his or her family and country, life and a good time, not necessarily in that order…”

Now this last is the thinking of an eighteen-year old, pure and simple … and is trite and shallow. It exemplifies the trendy rubbish of the language of the beer-commercial on TV. Repeat it often enough and you will see what I mean.

Who is this “we”, then, referred to in the editorial … does the writer speak for the ownership of Stabroek News? Or is this Editorial licence gone amok?

If that was not shocking enough, the editor then refers to the clear language of the descriptive “… is emotionally secure with a high level of self confidence and self esteem ...” with the arrogant, even asinine, comment: “... what’s the real difference?...”

If this had come from anywhere other than a respected newspaper, I would simply have ignored it.

But this is the Stabroek News, people, the Stabroek News! Here's a point that should not have to be made ... the editorial staff should have taken the time to acknowledge that there IS a subtle yet distinct difference in the meaning of “self-confidence” and “self-esteem” ... a realistic confidence in one’s own judgment, ability, power, etc. as against a realistic respect for or favorable overall impression of oneself. The latter leads to the former.

Now any dimwit of an editor should have checked the dictionary before making that dismissive a statement, but in a seamless moment of arrogance and childishness born out of a rage to discredit CARICOM on this non-issue, the staff writer opted for the easy way out.

Now if the above made us uncomfortable, the next should make us see red.

The rabid snarling in the SN editorial thereafter focuses on transforming CARICOM's next four ideals of the ideal Caribbean person ( “… sees ethnic, religious and other diversity as a source of potential strength and richness; is aware of the importance of living in harmony with the environment; has a strong appreciation of family and kinship values, community cohesion, and moral issues including responsibility for and accountability to self and community; has an informed respect for the cultural heritage;… ") into the awesome and fathomless drabness of its own jaundiced vision "… The ideal Caribbean person is someone who holds fast to whatever faith she or he believes in …. We are talking about a force that comes from within… ”. This is a case study in heady high-school logic in the absence of moral suasion.

Does “… whatever faith she or he believes in … ” include murder, violence, anarchy, atheism, racism, nepotisn? Because these are relevant concerns where an intense and overt moral sanction or restraint is absent in the belief system.

Do we really need to go back to a time when (Hindu Guyanese) Rhyaan Shah interpreted the Guyana National Motto "One People, One Nation, One Destiny" to mean " ... a racist creed of oneness ..." to see what this " ... force that comes from within ..." could mean to those with the same diseased outlook.

Now, we Christians of the Caribbean look to Jesus the Christ, and find no distress therein, no trouble with reconciling democracy with our religion ....

Despite the oil-shocks of the 70s, the debt-trauma of the 80s, the social and political upheavals of the 90s and the economic imperatives of the first decade of the new century, the hopes of CARICOM that a post-1997 “Ideal Caribbean Person” could bring to bear vision and wisdom as he or she “… demonstrates multiple literacies, independent and critical thinking, questions the beliefs and practices of past and present and brings this to bear on the innovative application of science and technology to problems solving …” are lost on SN’s Editor … and we are all the poorer … as a people and a region … after this latest bit of intellectual mischief and skulduggery (... what's the real difference?).

This staff writer should cease and desist!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

September 26, 2008

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

2009-07-18T22:27:00.000-07:00

Kaieteur News of July 9, 2009,

"The Delhi High Court Decision Should Be Rejected, not Lauded"

http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/09/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” ; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html . 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”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). 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” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-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” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY) 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” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): “... 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, naïve 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

Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation, and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution

2009-07-12T17:38:00.000-07:00

Context:

The following letter was written to Guyana’s representative to the OAS on August 2, 2008. No response has been received from the local office as at August 20, 2008. It is now submitted to the press on August 21, 2008, with copies to PANCAP and the Attorneys General of CARICOM. This document also represents Part 1 of a response to PANCAP because of its decision in August 2008 to ignore the evidence and recommend the decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution. Good law is based on good data and evidence, not wishful thinking or artful duplicity.

************************************************************

Mr. Dennis Moses
OAS Representative
Guyana Office

Dear Mr. Moses,

As a citizen of a member-country of the OAS, it is with some concern that I viewed the adoption of the resolution on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" cited below at the OAS' fourth plenary session held on June 3, 2008. The implications for adoption are enormous, and noticeably injurious to the national ethos of member states.

It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have begun to see this resolution as a "victory" for their respective communities.

It is very surprising that the debate at the OAS Secretariat, and its outcome, took place largely outside the knowledge of many citizens of its respective nations. The strange, even illegal, circumstances that operated to completely sideline submissions or contributions by the church and/or opposing organizations and citizens is adequately summarized in the report by the World Congress of Families at http://www.profam.org/press/wcf.pr.080620.htm

In that Press Release, two lines stand out: “… According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input….”

To what end?

I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.

It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy!”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:

“.... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault ....”

None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution.

In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal, medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the "resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources."

I an convinced, however, that the obvious departure from responsible judgement on the part of the OAS is due solely on its members, and the Secretariat, not being informed on the substantial amount of information to the contrary.

The sociological evidence against the adoption or implementation of the resolution is substantial, and I offer below a short introduction for your immediate perusal. The eight articles are, in the main, taken from Regent University's “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" law review series. There are others. My specific requests in writing to you on this occasion follow immediately after.

1. "EDITOR’S NOTE": Regent University's "Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" Law Review Series. ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

“.... We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing....”

“.... Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on....”

“.... We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children ....”

2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/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 pedophilia....”

3. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):

“.... 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....”

4. “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 )

5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )

6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc )

8. “Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002) ; ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc )

9. “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness!”, by Ben Kaufman; 14 Regent U.L. Rev. 423; 2002 ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ).

Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you with duly referenced alternative sites.

My specific requests are:

1. That you communicate my concern as a citizen of a member state of the OAS, and a copy of this e-mail, to the representative of every country present at the fourth session as a matter of urgency.

2. That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that I, as a citizen of a member state, or organizations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session BFORE the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.

3. I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission should the need arise.

4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.

5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.

The Permanent Representatives/Missions of all member states of the OAS

A DEADLY STORM OF RHETORIC IN GUYANA ABOUT CARICOM AND THE EPA

2009-07-11T00:35:00.000-07:00

13th September 2008

Dear Editor,

There is a deadly storm of agitated political talk abroad today, and Guyanese must pause and ask deep questions.

Like many other Guyanese, we may have thus far considered the issues at a distance, and must now familiarize ourselves with the detail. However, it is obvious that some recent comments are cause for alarm!

Smarting under the chagrin of a stupendous difference of opinion with fellow CARICOM leaders about the EU’s EPA, Bharat Jagdeo and Peter Ramsaroop have now transported an otherwise valiant stand on principle to the extreme of overtly proposing that Guyana “realizes its continental destiny”.

By any standard, this notion stretches the bounds of reason, and obvious questions arise:

1. To what end is this sudden, drastic overreaction in efforts at disowning CARICOM? Surely local opposition parties never envisaged (in their support for President Jagdeo’s initial position) that rooting for fairer treatment under the EPA would suddenly turn into a smear campaign against the CRNM. Having been slapped by the EU, Jagdeo is unwisely venting his anger on CARICOM and, by implication, fellow CARICOM heads. This is short-sighted, even foolish, for the short and medium term. A calm but intensely overt effort at out-and-out lobbying before the ACP meeting might bear more fruit, much like his initial presentation at the Lilliendaal "consultation".

2. What, exactly, is this “continental destiny” of which Jagdeo and Ramsaroop now speak? Does it include the fact that "continental" Venezuela, Suriname, and possibly Brazil, all have their eyes on Guyana's territory?

3. Is it the fact that Guyana is increasingly seen as drifting towards its drug-cartel destiny a la Colombia, even as the latest grisly stories from the USA about Robert Simels’ and Shaheed Khan’s efforts to “neutralize” witnesses shake the territory? What part, if any, does the soon-to-be-released report by the Jamaican forensic team on the Lindo Creek issue have to do with any of this? Or investigations into torture by the Guyanese government? If this latest move is nothing more than political grandstanding by a beleaguered political apparatus, then it establishes new depths of debauchery and irresponsibility for us as a maturing democracy.

4. If the CRNM has served us well in the past, why abandon it now with such careless talk? What, exactly, is the tangible evidence of a “next generation” left to face the EPA-tragedy? It is indeed strange that a government that imposed a 16% hangman’s noose “without consultation” over the heads of Guyanese citizens without heeding the pleas of the opposition, and that is now being called to account by its traditional union-ally GAWU because of the disastrous effects that VAT has had on their members’ standard of living, now has the interest of a “next generation” on their minds. Will the next generation of CARICOM states HAVE to be beleaguered by poor capacity and mono-crop exports? Does the agreement in fact give us time to establish this capacity and further diversify our economies?

Everyone talks about their being “some goodies” in the EPA, but no-one, least of all Jagdeo and Misir, bothers to tell us what they are! Are there exception clauses in the agreement? And are their other social issues in, or attendant to, the EPA that we should know about, much like a recent and astonishing Brazil-generated OAS-resolution on sexual orientation last June 3? Is this part of the “continental destiny” Ramsaroop envisages? Guyana's OAS-representative Dennis Moses now either refuses, or is incapable of, or has been otherwise not instructed, to respond on his lack of “consultation” with Guyanese citizenry on this issue. The potential consequences are truly enormous, and may span generations … but no answer from Jagdeo or Ramsaroop on that one. Obviously times have changed, but the questions in the article “Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation, and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-and-pancap-on-sexual.html ) will not go away, and still demand an answer!

The church and citizens generally need more time to consider these EPA-related issues carefully at this time, and not blindly follow heady political rhetoric! What has caused this new and strange alliance of political forces in Guyana, and to what end this foolish talk?

5. Where and when did the hastily arranged “consultation” session at the Conference Hall translate into a promise to validate the political rhetoric and insinuation of abandoning CARICOM?

6. Where did opposition support for Jagdeo on an issue of principle become a national referendum on dismissing, or separating from, or vilifying CARICOM? The PNC and the AFC need to let us know!

Then there is the rather dubious notion that whereas Guyana stands as a relative giant in CARICOM, we as minnows in the "continental destiny" would fare better in terms of having our own way with our South American counterparts. This would be foolhardy logic, since our language and our history immediately puts us at odds with continental neighbours. Surely active and intense diplomacy and lobbying with ACP heads before the signing in October is the answer, not the demeaning of the institution of CARICOM. Guyana must take on this task of lobbying single-handedly with the aid of the CARICOM Secretariat if necessary.

The failure of other CARICOM heads to await the ACP-meeting in Ghana next month before consensus is very disturbing, but we are premising our denouncements right now on the prospect that other African and Pacific nations will not do as the rest of the Caribbean has done. What, if anything, have our diplomatic feelers told us about the likely position the African and Pacific nations will take at their upcoming summit? If indeed they feel inclined to sign, then does that mean that the Caribbean including Guyana never had a choice in the first place? On the other hand a victory at re-negotiation by an AP/Guyana alliance on behalf of the entire ACP would do the region well.

Now someone educate me: If indeed the EU can now take issues taken off the WTO agenda back to the WTO through lobbying, then what stops CARICOM at that time from itself lobbying the WTO against same effort?

There is a lot of reckless talk abroad, and more questions than answers available at this time. However, one thing appears clear.

We should all stand up and declare that Guyana’s historical destiny lies with the Caribbean archipelago and its tradition of democracy and conservativism, not with Colombia’s drug-saturated legacy or Brazil’s sheer dominance and liberal agenda, nor with the deranged and anti-American demagoguery of Venezuels’s Chavez, nor India’s ambitions of empire in Latin America, and certainly not with Morales’s socialist retrogression or some leaders’ visions of third terms in office. It is indeed tragic that it is the EPA-event that has finally caused Guyana's head of state to finally meet with opposition leaders on the way forward for "One People, One Nation, with One Destiny".

An initial decision by President Jagdeo to not sign unless forced to do so seemed prudent until this escalation of rhetoric. Both Jagdeo and Ramsaroop should keep focused.

Until we know differently, the EU is the enemy here, not CARICOM!

This should be our initial starting point.

Now let’s all assess the evidence and pronounce on these issues (the EPA, and the EU) in the following days!

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
13th September 2008

Indian High Court’s Decision Was Wrong

2009-07-09T04:24:00.000-07:00

This is the unedited version of the letter "Indian High Court’s decision was wrong appearing in the Stabroek News of July 9, 2009.

Dear Editor,

The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe' (Kaieteur News 8/7/09; Stabroek News 7/7/09 captioned "UNAIDS Applauds the Decision of India's High Court" ) 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.

First, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html. There, in a fanciful fascination with the “Yogyagakarta Principles”, del Prado had made the 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 every one of them.

Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm for the now-tired arguments usually spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). 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 Resolutionson Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition-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 slap in the face for voters, and it is all being done in the name of “human rights!

Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the “OAS” and the “UN” in response to Sidibe, it will surely come as a surprise to readers/voters in Guyana and the Caribbean that the specious argumentation being resuscitated by Sidibe was in fact 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 rthe Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY ) 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 no doubt, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be equally "fascinated" with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…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…." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982). Note … the science has not changed in from then to 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric. He denies a gigantic paradox ... that homosexuality therefore needs entire medical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries has always 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 the lines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing” gay rights, then Sidibe’s 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 their political 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” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): "... According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority ...." Reisman goes on …“... 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 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 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 cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21).

The point again? Homosexuality NEEDS medical brigades to justify its space, and THAT’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or links to psychosexual violence and pedophilia!

"…. 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…." ( 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 - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% ....” CDC 2004 figures show remarkably 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 expect with decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons for the criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself in socially and personally destructive ways, then what does?

Decriminalization accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses. And an Indian High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams
8th July 2009

UNAIDS SHOULD OBJECT TO DELHI COURT RULING, NOT APPLAUD IT

2009-07-08T21:35:00.000-07:00

Dear Editor,

The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe' (Kaieteur News 8/7/09; Stabroek News 7/7/09 captioned "UNAIDS Applauds the Decision of India's High Court" ) 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.

First, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html. There, in a fanciful fascination with the “Yogyagakarta Principles”, del Prado had made the 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 every one 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, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, 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” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). 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 “decriminalization” crowd. We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutionson Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition 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 slap in the face for voters, and it is all being done in the name of “human rights!

Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the “OAS” and the “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 rthe Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY ) to show the error of that particular effort.

It gets worse. What do current US-indicators tell us about this “glorious” development in India ? He denies the fact of MRSA infection, and its affinity 19 times greater for homosexual populations. David Ostrow is in no doubt, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be equally "fascinated" with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…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…." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982). Note … the science has not changed in 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric. He denies the gigantic paradox that screams at us all ... that homosexuality therefore needs entire medical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries has always 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 the lines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing” gay rights, then Sidibe’s 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 their political 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” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): "According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority". Reisman goes on …“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 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 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 cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21).

The point? Homosexuality NEEDS medical brigades to justify its space, and THAT’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or links to 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, naïve third world populations infatuated with UN rhetoric”: "…. 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…." ( 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 - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500%....” CDC 2004 figures show remarkably consistent infection rates among MSM, in glaring counterpoint to Sidibe's figures.

What are the facts for the Caribbean ? India ? What can we reasonably expect with decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons for the criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself in socially and personally destructive ways, then what does? Decriminalization accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses.

And an Indian High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

8th July 2009

RESPONSE TO OAS RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

2009-07-06T22:33:00.001-07:00

Context:

***********************************************************

Submission to the OAS re June 3 2008 resolution on “HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY”

Mr. Dennis Moses
OAS Representative
Guyana Office

Dear Mr. Moses,

As a citizen of a member-country of the OAS, it is with some concern that I viewed the adoption of the resolution on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" cited below at the OAS' fourth plenary session held on June 3, 2008. The implications for adoption are enormous, and noticeably injurious to the national ethos of member states.

It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have begun to see this resolution as a "victory" for their respective communities.

I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.

It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:

“.... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault....”

None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution. In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal, medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the "resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources."

1. "EDITOR’S NOTE": Regent University's "Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" Law Review Series; ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on.”

“We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children....”

2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …

3. Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):

4. “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 )

5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )

6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc )

8. “Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc )

9. “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness”; 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 423 (2002) by Ben Kaufman ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ).

Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you with alternative sites.

My specific requests are:

1. That you communicate my concern as a citizen of a member state of the OAS, and a copy of this e-mail, to the representative of every country present at the fourth session as a matter of urgency.

2. That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that I, as a citizen of a member state, or organizations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session BFORE the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.

3. I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission should the need arise.

4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.

5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
Georgetown
Guyana
August 1, 2008

E-mail: RogerWilli@Yahoo.com

Cc: The Guyana Council of Churches
The Georgetown Ministers’ Fellowship
The Guyana Evangelical Fellowship
Minister/Ministry of Human Services and Social Security in Guyana
The Trade Union Movement in Guyana
The Head, Guyana Teachers’ Union
The Caribbean Conference of Churches
The Evangelical Association of the Caribbean
The World Evangelical Alliance
The Pentecostal Assemblies of the West Indies
The Secretary General, CARICOM
All political parties in Guyana
The Caribbean media
The country-representatives of all member states of the OAS
The Permanent Representatives/Missions of all member states of the OAS

A copy of the original OAS-resolution follows:

HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY
(Adopted at the fourth plenary OAS session, held on June 3, 2008)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, REAFFIRMING:

That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in that Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status;

That the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person;

CONSIDERING that the OAS Charter proclaims that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of liberty and a favorable environment for the development of his personality and the realization of his just aspirations;

REAFFIRMING the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights; and

TAKING NOTE with concern acts of violence and related human rights violations perpetrated against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,

RESOLVES:

1. To express concern about acts of violence and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. To request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

3. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the implementation of this resolution, the execution of which shall be subject to the resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources.

SUBMISSION TO THE OAS RE JUNE 3 2008 RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY

2009-07-05T23:41:00.000-07:00

Context:

******************************

Submission to the OAS re June 3 2008 resolution on “HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY”

August 2, 2008

Mr. Dennis Moses
OAS Representative
Guyana Office

Dear Mr. Moses,

It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have begun to see this resolution as a "victory" for their respective communities.

It IS very surprising that the debate at the OAS Secretariat, and its outcome, took place largely outside the knowledge of many citizens of its respective nations. The strange, even illegal, circumstances that operated to completely sideline submissions or contributions by the church and/or opposing organizations and citizens is adequately summarized in the report by the World Congress of Families at http://www.profam.org/press/wcf.pr.080620.htm

In that Press Release, two lines stands out (emphasis mine): ".... According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input ...."

To what end?

I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.

It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:

“.... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault....”

None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution.

In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal, medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the "resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources."

I an convinced, however, that the obvious departure from responsible judgement on the part of the OAS is due solely to the fact that its members, and the Secretariat, are not being informed on the substantial amount of information to the contrary.

The sociological evidence against the adoption or implementation of the resolution is substantial, and I offer below a short introduction for your immediate perusal. The eight articles are, in the main, taken from Regent University's “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" law review series. There are others. My specific requests in writing to you on this occasion follow immediately after.

1. "EDITOR’S NOTE": Regent University's "Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" Law Review Series; ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

“.... We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing.”

“Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on.”

“We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children....”

2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …

3. Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):

4. “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 )

5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )

6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ) .

THIS PARTICULAR LAW REVIEW IS IMPORTANT, SINCE IN ITS "HIDING DIRTY LAUNDRY" SECTION, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE RATES OF VIOLENCE WITHIN THE LGBT COMMUNITY IS VASTLY HIGHER THAN ANY IT EXPERIENCES FROM GROUPS WITHOUT. QUITE SIMPLY, IT REFLECTS A PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER MANIFESTING ITSELF.

8. “Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc )

9. “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness”, by Ben Kaufman ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 423 (2002)

Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you with duly referenced alternative sites upon your request.

3. I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission should the need arise.

4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.

5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.

THE CHRISTIAN PROTEST AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING PRESENTS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

2009-07-05T22:29:00.000-07:00

Context:

In 2007 Guyana's Home Affairs Minister claimed that Christian protests over casino gambling represented a “threat to national security”. A letter captioned “The Christian protest against casino gambling presents no threat to national security” was later published by SN (see http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56511661).

The day after this story was published, Stabroek News lost its advertising from government. Since then, Stabroek News has changed its website, and eventually relocated and reassigned many documents (see the new version of the story above at http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=552). They have also regained government advertising.What is interesting is what SN is now choosing to leave out in the reconstituted documents at the new website (see yellow highlights in story below published on January 14th 2007).

What, exactly, is the new focus of Stabroek News?

THE CHRISTIAN PROTEST AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING PRESENTS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY
January 14, 2007

Dear Editor,

There were three major revelations this week as the casino gambling debacle unfolded.

The first was the obvious effort by Stabroek News to carry as balanced a report as possible on the issues unfolding inside and outside of Parliament, and their middle-page spreads on January 11 and 12 were as much a testimony of good reporting as it was of the surprising degree of latitude given by SN’s Editor to reporters Miranda LaRose, Keisha McCammon and Andre Haynes.

The second was the stark contrast provided by the statesmanship and awareness Sheila Holder against the noticeably vindictive opportunism of Ministers Clement Rohee and Desrey Fox. The former translated a statement at a press conference of January 10 that the Christian Community would do “anything within the bounds of Christian conduct” to mean that they had become “a threat to national security”. This would be laughable were it not, as Holder opined, “predictable”.

Mr. Rohee willfully mischaracterized the Christian position as carefully outlined in (i) press releases to seven media houses, (ii) a sixteen-page document on the Church’s rationale for its position, also delivered to seven media houses, and (iii) a six-page Private Petition to the entire House, with an odd mixture of utterances that demand further scrutiny. He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he alone shared these opinions in parliamentary session, or that he saw “demons” where the media saw none. Christians focused on the evidence, while Mr. Rohee offered none. This is unacceptable and disingenuous.

Mr. Rohee is challenged to show a single word and sentence in these submissions that hinted at a “security threat”, or that represented an occasion where the Minister was justified in acting or speaking the way he did.

Mr. Rohee himself, like the Prime Minister, is challenged to show a single “theological” or “doctrinal” point in any of the submissions by the church to Guyana’s Parliamentarians. If they cannot, then they owe an apology to 57% of the population. Neither of them, quite frankly, appears capable of that simple task.

But perhaps the level of Mr. Rohee’s imagination can only be appreciated by his careful omission of the fact that the Christian community had circumspectly submitted to the Guyana Police Force several days in advance a request for permission to congregate in peaceful protest at Parliament Buildings, and that its Draft Position Paper was submitted to the Guyana Police for scrutiny after request. It apparently passed with flying colours, but Mr. Rohee envisaged barricades as the dramatically appropriate response. It was outlandish and inconsiderate, and spanks of an immaturity that ought not to reside in the office of Minister of Home Affairs.

The Final Position Paper is still available for the general public.

The final development was the fact that it was the Christian community alone, albeit with spirited verbal support from Muslims, which sought to develop a new standard of democratic interaction with Parliament by being brave enough to document, defend and circulate to all concerned the enormity of the social experiment that is being played out in Guyana through the potential of thirty (yes thirty) casinos, since the Bill accommodates up to three per administrative region … and more if the Minister’s unlimited power is used.

In an attempt at true consultation, and to bring realism to the consultative process, every stakeholder available benefited from the Church’s documentation and invitation, and in the process the Christian community accommodated “democracy” far more than Mr. Rohee’s scorn ever did. Surely an appeal to the Commomwealth Secretary-General will show that every action taken by the Christian community was well within the scope of the good parliamentary procedure that the "Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005” report by Sir Michael Davies accommodates.

Dr. Desrey Fox will soon have enough on her hands to explain her atrocious remarks in the Assembly to the Christian indigenous population, but should now concern herself, as Minister in the Ministry of Education, with explaining the following concerns the GOIP obviously had:

* In jurisdictions much more capable than ours numerous research studies and other statistical information have identified a strong link between the recent increase in legalized gambling and increased societal problems. These problems include increased bankruptcies, suicides, addictions, divorce, child abuse, domestic violence and the exploitation of the poor.

* According to University of California-San Diego sociologist Dr. David Phillips, Las Vegas “displays the highest levels of suicide in the nation, both for residents of Las Vegas and for visitors to that setting.” In Atlantic City, N.J., Phillips found that “abnormally high suicide levels for visitors and residents appeared only after gambling casinos were opened.”

* In Gulfport, Mississippi, suicides increased by 213% (from 24 to 75) in the first two years after casinos arrived. In neighboring Biloxi, suicide attempts jumped by 1,000% (from 6 to 66) in the first year alone.

* That according to the Bill, all a member of the vulnerable indigenous population has to do to gain entry into a casino in his or her locale is to rent a room first … thereby becoming a “paying patron”.

* That she has ignored every part of the Christian reference to INSCR 2006 in their Position Paper. This is unacceptable from a Minister of Education, and she does great disservice to the persons in her charge.

So, while Lumumba may have already counted the “one billion dollars” that he expects from casino gambling, we should ask him: “Now what do you see as the social cost?” … especially since suicides and the abandonment of the rule of law, are hot topics in Guyana.

The question is, can he, or Desrey Fox, see or count that far?

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

14th January 2007

Del Prado's Activist Statement Insults UNAIDS and CARICOM Policy on AIDS and Must be Rejected

2009-07-05T16:12:00.000-07:00

Publish date: May 26, 2008

Original location: The Guyana Chronicle; "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html

Dear Editor,

I refer to the news article on comments by the current UNAIDS Country Coordinator for Guyana, Dr. Ruben del Prado (KN 5 22 08) and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut.

The comments reportedly attributed to Dr. Prado are disturbing in their departure from every known standard of professional conduct. Mr. Prado’s professional usefulness, and his integrity as a representative for UNAIDS in Guyana, has obviously been compromised. His statements are a serious violation of cautions in UNAIDS’s own policy brief, and it is clear that he has now become activist. Guyana’s 1998 National Policy adequately addresses discriminatory issues.

I am mindful of the seriousness of these allegations, and will copy this response to CAREC, WHO, PAHO, the CDC, the local Ministry of Health, the CARICOM Secretariat, the Caribbean Council of Churches, and the UN itself. This should, by itself, engineer a generous debate on the latitude Dr Prado took with inferring that his comments reflected official UN policy, since by no stretch of the imagination can it be assumed that the UN or its agencies deliberately advocates and/or supports policies that contradict the available scientific, legal and medical evidence. This would be foolish, even in the pursuit of “human rights”, and we await his strenuous defence of statements to this effect.

First, Dr.Prado is irresponsible in implying that the Yogyakarta Principles in any way reflects the letter and spirit of the UN Charter relative to medically dangerous and socially destructive activities of a sexual nature when the supporting evidence is overwhelming, and must now shoulder an equal irresponsibility in inferring UNAIDS’ bias through his not outlining a countervailing policy of “technical and financial support” to opponents of Sasod who have documented opposing arguments and evidence. A failure to correct this would infer that UNAIDS has chosen sides while the jury is still out, or, worse, that Prado has acted in complete and deliberate disregard of the evidence.

We cite the voluminous and well-articulated law reviews of Regent University’s “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) and further show that these strike at the heart of entire sections of the “Yogyagkarta Principles”, and urge the prompt communication of the availability and amount of matching funding available to promote the findings of same law review series.

In advocating the above, we must specifically request Dr. Prado to respond with diligence and intensity to the following allegations of David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series, since we will prove same:

".... 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....”

Secondly, Dr. Prado is facetious and disingenuous in implying that the comments of PAHO’s Dr. Mirta Roses suggest the altogether ridiculous position that any opposition to Same-Sex Attraction Disorders represents “hatred against people with different sexual orientations”. In fact it shows the opposite (commendable professionalism) since 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 when he said: "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". The issue, we should remind UNAIDS, care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”.

Other activist strategies with some local relevance have been addressed in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter”.

Thirdly, therefore, Prado exhibits an unprecedented degree of recklessness in advocating that “For UNAIDS, it is both a call of duty and an honour to support SASOD’s call for decriminalisation of homosexuality in Guyana”. We can and will ask the UN Secretary-General, as well as his local counterpart at CARICOM, to distance themselves and their organizations from this statement. We have shown that such a step will fly in the face of common sense, and seems to be the product of unusual strains of denial and delusion best described by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” (Baker Books, 2002).

It also illustrates that Prado’s fanciful flight from wishful thinking to insipid outburst is based on nothing else than a cruel disregard for public safety and order. Mr. Prado ignores the astonishing evidence in the law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ). Again, Mr. Prado’s professional usefulness, and his integrity as a representative for UNAIDS in Guyana, has obviously been compromised. We have shown CDC figures at page 5 of the online report “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) that illustrate that disease and child molestation defines the death-style that Prado and SASOD are sworn to protect, 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 wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhea, gonorrhea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites (in addition to the incidence of HIV) in Guyana. What are the facts for Guyana? In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV.

We had also shown in the online summary “Supporting ‘Gay Rights’ Laws would court legal disasters” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-gay-rights-laws-would-court.html )

As a matter of principle, then, I call on Dr. Prado to indicate firmly that the views expressed in that article were indicative of his personal opinions only, and in no way reflect official UN Policy, or that of UNAIDS.

Any other position represents an anarchical attempt to seize Guyana’s soverignity, and must be resisted by government and opposition alike.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 26th 2008

Freud Did Think Homosexuality Was Disordered

2009-07-05T15:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Editor,

Kissoon's letter (SN 5 20 08) is remarkable in its avoidance of the issues, and perpetuates a pattern of activist deception. The Christian and Biblical position is clear: It is the truth that sets persons free, so the initial effort towards this end was found in the article "Guyana's 1998 policy statement on people living with HIVAIDS adequately addresses nondiscrimination in the health sector" at http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14601 [July 2009 update: note that, for some strange reason, many past anti-gay-rights and pro-Christian.Israel articles are becoming unavailable at their original permalinks on the Stabroek News website, so this story can be located here].

As in an abortive attempt a few years ago, Kissoon's arguments now come down to justifying the homosexual condition and gay militancy on the basis of a "letter" by a noted psychiatrist, at age 79, written in freehand in an obviously reassuring tone to a frantic mother ...and without any repeat any reference to the clinical position that Freud himself advocated (we will address this later).

If this deception sounds familiar, it is. We remember a similar "letter" written by an American president to a group of churchmen illustrating that the government had no business interfering with their worship because of a constitutional "wall of separation". This letter was thereafter hijacked to undermine the same constitution altogether. This is the way with hoaxes. The latter from Freud, we may add, was only published 12 years after his death.

So, secondly, we should ask Kissoon why he chose to end Freud's “letter” (see the handwritten copy at http://www.truthtree.com/freud.shtml ) at that precise point in his own letter. He leaves out the last sentence, and the implications are enormous. Freud, as everywhere in his letter, hints at the possibility of change, and is also clear in his certainty that, like SASOD's and Kissoon's denial and desperation, the offer of psychological evaluation would be refused: "If you make up your mind that he should have analysis with me (I don't expect you will!!) he has to come over to Vienna. I have no intention of leaving here. However, don't neglect to give me your answer."

Implicit everywhere in that sentence is the possibility of change, and so Kissoon is dishonest to advocate that the "letter" shows that "Freud did not advocate homosexuality as disordered". This is poor reasoning and worse scholarship, and Kissoon and sasod must do the hard work and turn to Freud’s solid clinical and research evidence that is available. He also ignores Jung, Adler and the Bible. This is irresponsible.

But where does the average citizen begin to find this, and other, reliable information?

Again, we point readers, the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Health to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s introductory treatment in the article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) and Ben Kaufman’s illuminating law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 REGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). Nicolosi is unchallenged in his contention that Freud, Jung and Adler all saw homosexuality as disordered. Today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders simply because of pandering to "political correctness". Research simply stopped, except for NARTH and very brave researchers. The truth cannot be avoided.

The astonishing outcome, says Nicolosi, is that homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists. This is the cruel endgame of Kissoon’s duplicity.

Finally, therefore, a ray of hope for those so affected (see page 8 of 20 in Dr Ben Kaufman's law review noted above). Kaufman concludes: "Numerous therapists, among them Berger, Bieber, Bergler, Caprio, Capron, Hadden, Kaye, Kronemeyer, Nicolosi, Rogers, Siegle, and Socarides, using a number of different forms of therapy, have reported successful treatment of persons experiencing same-sex attraction". In a comprehensive review of the literature on change, Warren Throckmorton challenges those who oppose therapy: "Narrowly, the question to be addressed is: Do conversion therapy techniques work to change unwanted sexual arousal? I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no clients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors – that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches."

It is clear that Kissoon and sasod have deeply entrenched positions reflecting the gay-militant agenda, and would rather see persons suffer than benefit from change.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV (see the CDC report for 2004 on page 5 of the online article “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ). This evidence cannot be explained away.

We hope the body of evidence provided will correct perspectives on this issue.

Roger Williams
May 24th, 2008

Guyana’s 1998 Policy Statement on People Living With HIV/AIDS Adequately Addresses Non-discriminatio in the Health Sector

2009-07-04T21:59:00.000-07:00

Post Date: May 24th 2008
Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3038085/Guyanas-1998-policy-statement-on-people-living-with-HIVAIDS-adequately-addresses-nondiscrimination-in-the-health-sector

Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter by Joel Simpson et al (SN 5/17/08) advocating “anti-homophobia” training and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. The letter is disturbing in many of the issues it pretends to raise.

A phobia is defined as an “irrational fear”, and the Christian community in Guyana and elsewhere have spent a considerable amount of time and effort advocating that opposition to the issue of homosexuality, and moreso of gay militancy as prescribed by Simpson, Kissoon and Sasod, is anything but irrational. Simpson’s last letter cited above represents another opportunity to provide the police, judiciary, national library and health workers with a body of knowledge that will inform a holistic appreciation of the issues.

It is training about the realty of the GBLT lifestyle, rather than “anti-homophobia training” that needs to be promoted. It is the truth that will set persons free, not a generous dosage of deception.

First, 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 Simpson’s arguments, when he said: "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". The issue, we should remind care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”. We have addressed some of these issues and arguments in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” .

Secondly, we should lament the casualness with which Simpson, and apparently (sic) the WHO, alludes to the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Our previous efforts have ensured that Simpson is fully aware of the impropriety and downright falsehood that this statement represents. Again, we point the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Health to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s introductory treatment in the article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) and Dr. Ben Kaufman’s illuminating law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 Regent U. L. Rev. 423 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). Both persons, and hopefully by now the WHO, seem to agree that all three great pioneers of psychiatry … Freud, Jung and Adler … saw homosexuality as disordered.

Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. How did this happen? Simply through gay-militant advocacy of the sort that Simpson/Kissoon/Sasod is advocating.

As with the dispensation of medicine, Psychiatry performs an essential function in the health sector, and is good that Sasod, Simpson and Kissoon must now confront the fact that the entire premise upon which they triumphantly cite the (sic) WHO decision has no basis in health science.

Thirdly, we are not so long down the road from the grisly events of the past year in which several schoolboys at a local school were sexually molested, while yet another establishment in proximity to another high school in the centre of Georgetown promotes same-sex pornographic film “festivals” to students and public alike.

It therefore came as no surprise when, deep in Simpson’s/Kissoon’s letter above, we found a thinly-veiled “appeal” to address “male rape” and “consensual same-sex” in the Ministry of Human Services’ pending “Stamp It Out” legislation. We have addressed the folly of this endeavour in the online recommendation to the Minister, the Opposition, the Church and the Press labelled “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It Out Consultation”. Good law is based on good information, not duplicity or ambivalence.

Guyana’s 1998 Policy Statement on PLWHA adequately addresses non-discriminatory practices in the health sector, and the Ministry of Health would be ill-advised to accommodate Simpson’s and Sasod’s obvious attempt to confuse the legitimate medical needs of PLWHA with their own gay-militant attempts to infiltrate and control health-sector policy.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

May 24th 2008

Sasod Attempting to Influence Health Sector Policy in Guyana

2009-07-04T21:31:00.000-07:00

Publishing date: May 24th 2008

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3016613/Sasod-attempting-to-influence-Health-Sector-Policy-in-Guyana

Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter from Joel Simpson et al (SN 5/17/08) advocating “anti-homophobia” training and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. The letter is disturbing in many of the issues it pretends to raise.

A phobia is defined as an “irrational fear”, and the Christian community in Guyana and elsewhere have spent a considerable amount of time and effort advocating that opposition to the issue of homosexuality, and moreso of gay militancy as prescribed by Simpson, Kissoon and Sasod, is anything but irrational. Simpson’s last letter cited above represents another opportunity to provide the police, judiciary, national library and health workers with a body of knowledge that will inform a holistic appreciation of the issues. It is training about the realty of the GBLT lifestyle, rather than “anti-homophobia training” that needs to be promoted. It is the truth that will set persons free, not a generous dosage of deception.

First, 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 Simpson’s arguments, when he said: "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". The issue, we should remind care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”. We have addressed some of these issues and arguments in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter”.

Secondly, we should lament the casualness with which Simpson, and apparently (sic) the WHO, alludes to the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Our previous efforts have ensured that Simpson is fully aware of the impropriety and downright falsehood that this statement represents. Again, we point the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Health to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s introductory treatment in the article “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm ) and Dr. Ben Kaufman’s illuminating law review “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness” (14 Regent U. L. Rev. 423 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). Both persons, and hopefully by now the WHO, seem to agree that all three great pioneers of psychiatry … Freud, Jung and Adler … saw homosexuality as disordered.

Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. How did this happen? Simply through gay-militant advocacy of the sort that Simpson/Kissoon/Sasod is advocating.

As with the dispensation of medicine, Psychiatry performs an essential function in the health sector, and is good that Sasod, Simpson and Kissoon must now confront the fact that the entire premise upon which they triumphantly cite the (sic) WHO decision has no basis in health science.

Thirdly, we are not so long down the road from the grisly events of the past year in which several schoolboys at a local school were sexually molested, while yet another establishment in proximity to another high school in the centre of Georgetown promotes same-sex pornographic film “festivals” to students and public alike. It therefore came as no surprise when, deep in Simpson’s/Kissoon’s letter above, we found a thinly-veiled “appeal” to address “male rape” and “consensual same-sex” in the Ministry of Human Services’ pending “Stamp It Out” legislation. We have addressed the folly of this endeavour in the online recommendation to the Minister, the Opposition, the Church and the Press labelled “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It Out Consultation”. Good law is based on good information, not duplicity or ambivalence.

Guyana’s 1998 Policy Statement on PLWHA adequately addresses non-discriminatory practices in the health sector, and the Ministry of Health would be ill-advised to accommodate Simpson’s and Sasod’s obvious attempt to confuse the legitimate medical needs of PLWHA with their own gay-militant attempts to infiltrate and control health-sector policy.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

May 24th 2008

GENOCIDE IN GUYANA: THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

2009-07-04T18:26:00.000-07:00

GENOCIDE IN GUYANA: THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

Following the articles “The Marginalization of Persons of African Origin in Guyana” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/marginalization-of-persons-of-african.html ) and “30012 Gun Licences Guyana Review June 1999” we now have confirmation via the US Court System that a terrorist group headed by Shaheed “Roger” Khan led a criminal enterprise that was responsible for the extra-judicial deaths of hundreds of (mainly Black?) Guyanese since 1992.

Ronald Austin, for one, in his article “Genocide”

(http://www.caribimpact.net/v3_72_feature_5.html ) puts the toll at over 400, while yet others point to “1,107 Guyanese murdered between 2001 and 2007”.

The Ethnic Relations Commission and the government of Guyana still have not officially revealed the ethnicity of those killed, or to whom the government has distributed thousands of weapons.

The text of the Stabroek News Report on the revelations in the US Court System is reproduced below, and will be updated daily as developments occur.

Roger Williams
May 15, 2008

"Judge finds need for anonymous jury in Roger Khan case; US gov’t source: ‘Phantom Squad’ killed over 200 here..."
May 15, 2008 (http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14354 )

".... Guyanese drug accused Roger Khan’s criminal history and his alleged participation in a large scale criminal enterprise were among points a US judge considered in ruling in favour of an anonymous jury and a US government source has said that the infamous phantom squad murdered over 200 persons here.

Judge Dora Irizarry issued the order on Tuesday. This means that the names, addresses and workplaces of members of the jury would not be revealed and that they would eat lunch together and be accompanied to and from the courthouse each day by the United States Marshals Service.

Justice Irizarry is of the opinion that the dangerousness of the defendant, as is alleged by the prosecution, is a fact worth considering since according to one of the government’s confidential sources the “Phantom Squad” Khan was associated with is responsible for “at least 200 extra-judicial killings from 2002 to 2006” in Guyana.

Roger Khan

And while he is not charged with crimes considered to be violent in nature, his involvement with and leadership of a criminal organisation indicates his “propensity for violence.”

Khan through his lawyers had opposed the government’s motion and had argued that an anonymous jury was unnecessary as the government failed to establish that jurors needed protection and that such measures, in particular the partial sequestering of jurors, would have an unduly prejudicial effect on him.

However, the judge found that the empanelling of an anonymous and partially sequestered jury was necessary to protect the interest of the public and the jurors.

According to court documents seen by this newspaper in support of its argument for the sequestering of the jury, the prosecution had contended that an anonymous and partially sequestered jury was necessary to ensure the public’s interest in an impartial verdict and to protect prospective jurors.

The judge, in making her ruling, pointed out that there was evidence of Khan’s willingness to tamper with the judicial process since he admitted that in 1993 he successfully evaded federal prosecution in Vermont for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon by absconding to Guyana while on bail. That action, the judge said, indicated his ability to tamper with the judicial process in the US.

The judge added that the government’s confidential sources had indicated that Khan would not hesitate to order the killing of anyone he believed was aiding the US government in investigating and prosecuting him and his alleged criminal organisation. US government sources further alleged that Khan ordered the murder of one of his alleged narcotics associates, whom he believed was cooperating with the government. Justice Irizarry also pointed out that the court had to issue an order prohibiting Khan’s lawyers from making statements to the press to protect cooperating witnesses.

Khan had contended that the government could not rely on conduct occurring outside of the US, but the judge found this to be misplaced since the relevant inquiry was the willingness to tamper and not the location of the tampering.

Inaccurate news sources:

Justice Irizarry also found that Khan’s contention that the government relied improperly on inaccurate Guyanese news sources lacked merit and held that the prosecution relied on more than just news articles in support of its allegations of the defendant’s dangerousness. She stated that the potential for juror intimidation by the anticipated media coverage of the trial supported empanelling an anonymous and partially sequestered jury.

Khan had admitted that his case “generated a substantial amount of publicity in Guyana” and this continued up to this day, the judge noted, giving the example of the government’s April 24 letter, which appeared the very next day on the front page of the Stabroek News.

“In fact, the Guyanese press reports on most developments as they occur in this case,” Justice Irizarry said.

She added that based on the nature of the coverage to date, the court found that there was a substantial likelihood that the names, addresses, and workplaces of the jurors would be reported immediately.

She said Khan’s contention that the jurors were not affected by media sources disseminating news outside the district lacked merit. “Consistent media coverage, even if minimal, provides support for anonymity as coverage enhances the ‘possibility that jurors’ names would become public and thus expose them to intimidation by defendants’ friends or enemies, or harassment by the public’,” the judge said.

She pointed out that any information published online in Guyana was available in the US and elsewhere.

Moreover, the concern is amplified by the fact that the (New York) district is home to the largest Guyanese population living outside Guyana and it would be unreasonable to assume that the case would not be followed by members of the Guyanese community.

Further, the judge said, local sources have covered the case as the New York Daily News has often sat in on status conferences. However, Justice Irizarry said, the court was mindful of its duty to protect Khan’s constitutional rights and in order to preserve the presumption of innocence would provide prospective jurors with a neutral explanation of the reason for their anonymity and partial sequestration.

Khan is charged with an eighteen-count indictment of distribution, importation, and possession of cocaine and engaging as a principal administrator, organiser, and leader of a continuing criminal enterprise in New York and elsewhere.

He is accused of heading a powerful, violent, cocaine trafficking organisation out of Guyana. He faces a maximum penalty of life in prison if convicted".

Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com/
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14354
Image: http://www.stabroeknews.com/images/2008/05/roger1.jpg

Bounty Killer and Movado Were Easy targets for the Minister

2009-07-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

Publish date: May 5, 2008

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2898330/Bounty-Killer-and-Movado-were-easy-targets-for-the-Minister

The areas highlighted in gold were deleted by Stabroek News

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians in Parliament. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s Ignition Concert is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled Black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words.

And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 5th 2008

Banning Bounty Killer and Movado: Season of Madness in Guyana

2009-07-04T15:26:00.000-07:00

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2811353/Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-Season-of-madness-in-Guyana
The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 5, 2008

Season of madness: Banning Bounty Killer & Movado, invoking "security threats" and accommodating gay militancy!

2009-07-04T14:17:00.000-07:00

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2758952/Season-of-madness-Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-invoking-security-threats-and-accommodating-gay-militancy-in-Guyana

The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Social Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s "Ignition Concert" is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
May 5, 2008

ADVOCACY OF REMOVAL OF CP (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) SENSELESS

2009-07-04T11:53:00.002-07:00

(The letter "ADVOCACY OF REMOVAL OF CP (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) SENSELESS" appears in the Guyana Chronicle of April 8, 2008; and also online at http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2002-04-08.html#Anchor------------55642

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by Michael Hackett (SN 28/03/08) captioned “The Christian position on corporal punishment is anything but uniform”, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Hackett’s letter is remarkable in the amount of issues it avoids.

The caption is unfortunate, since the issue at stake is not the defence of Christian “uniformity” on the issue of CP, as much as it is about addressing the nexus between secular research and the compelling Biblical position on corporal punishment (pages 25-27 of the online Dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA; http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ); and so the senselessness of advocating the removal of CP from a range of disciplinary measures available to the teacher and parents. In this latter regard, David Benatar (http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm ) is blunt:

“.... 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....”

Radical view? Extreme view? The bigger “CRC” picture seems lost to pro-ban activists. In fact, Hackett and Radzik et al never address the fact that UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, reiterated in General Assembly Resolution 52/119 of December 12, 1997, says 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". They do not challenge these resolutions.

It gets worse. Radzik et al, and now Hackett, never deny that the Heritage Foundation has revealed that ".... the UN's longstanding respect for the right of soverign nations to set their own domestic policies has yielded to a new countercultural agenda espoused in UN committee reports and documents particularly those relating to the implementation of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC)...." , articulating its stunning evidence in Patrick Fagan’s meticulous report: "How the UN Conventions on Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion and Soverignity" (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm ). They do not challenge a single point of this report. This is grossly inept scholarship, or else deliberate misinformation.

Hackett never addresses Dr. Mark Hartwig’s diagnosis of an assault on sovereignty and the granting of undue influence to special interests that seems integral to local CRC ambitions (“False Promises: How the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Undermines National Sovereignty, the Legitimate Role of Parents and the Well-Being of Children“; http://www.worldfamilypolicy.org/New%20Page/Forum/2001/Hartwig.pdf ), implying that at least five local NGO’s closely associated with the NCRC may have “consultative status" with the body, and could therefore be seen to be seeking to usurp the Ministry of Education’s outlook and legal authority on the issue of CP. He chooses to “ignore” the implications.

While we note Hackett’s, and Radzik’s careful avoidance of the term “CRC” in this latest attack, neither of them challenge any of Dr. Hartwig’s contentions that the provisions of the CRC are unacceptable because of the following five reasons:

(1) They allow excessive breadth of interpretation;
(2) They give the Committee on the Rights of the Child virtually unlimited jurisdiction;
(3) They give undue influence to special interests;
(4) They undermine the legitimate role of parents; and
(5) They advance policies that intrude on national sovereignty.

Hackett never denies that dossier’s account that the Convention itself also stipulates that 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”, and that the guidelines for the 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 addresses the Convention’s call. Withdrawing CP from a range of disciplinary measures serves no useful purpose! Outstanding scholars have been produced by Guyana in an environment of caring but firm discipline.

Hackett, in his treatment, denies the dossier’s position that Robert Larzelere’s report “Sweden’s Smacking Ban: More Harm than Good” (http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf) rudely illustrates the astonishing fact that Sweden suffered a 519% increase in child-on-child assaults after the ban in the 20 years following (Wittrock 1995). Hackett never challenges Darren Bahaw’s account of an urgent call for CP in the Trinidad Express, Port of Spain, 17 June 2004 (http://www.corpun.com/tts00406.htm ). He ignores the evidence the dossier provides!

Readers should understand that a formidable array of resources and academic opinion exist on the issue of corporal punishment (see "Resources: Corporal Punishment of Children" by Dr. Paul Poelstra at the URL http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/). These generally support the Judeo-Christian position on corporal punishment, and Hackett is deceitful in inferring otherwise.

The Judeo-Christian position advocates freedom to choose to not use CP, but compels Christians and citizens to be cognisant of its rightful and justifiable place in a scheme of disciplinary measures.

Good law is based on good data, and this is precisely what the online dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) seeks to provide for the legal and political community in Guyana. Hackett usually uses jingoistic sound-bytes to further his causes, but a closer look at his work usually reveals a shocking lack of detailed treatment.

It is imperative as we mature as a nation that we adopt social policies consistent with a sound awareness of current issues. Anything else cheapens the effort of heroes in our past, and makes us seem incompetent to future generations.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

April 5, 2008

Brynmor Pollard: Folly and Civic Irresponsibility on the Issue of Corporal Punishment in Guyana

2009-07-04T11:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Editor,

I had mentioned before that an astonishing degree of activist subterfuge has driven the CRC-driven effort in various states thus far. It thrives on the unawareness and unpreparedness of citizens. As context, the reader will be astonished to know that the High Court in Israel accepted no submissions, took no evidence, considered no memoranda, and ruled on the issue of CP while considering another case altogether. Brynmor Pollard, in his letter (SN 2/04/08) does not disappoint. In Pollard’s comments we have a citizen choosing to ignore the horror stories and urging the Government to tolerate same “in the best interest of the nation”. This is folly!

Good law is based on good data. The online dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) seeks to provide politicians, social leaders and legal minds with a concise framework of references around which a national consensus can be engineered.

In responding to a letter by another legal luminary in Guyana, Keith Massiah, on the same subject, (see “Former Guyana Chief Justice Massiah has it all wrong on the Corporal Punishment Issue”; http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/former-guyana-chief-justice-has-it-all.html ) I had alluded to the very narrow legal vision of that pronouncement. Massiah had, as Pollard now does, in fact chosen to ignore a plethora of attendant issues. This type of vision, it is easy to argue, never promotes good social policy and the national ethos. It illustrates profound civic irresponsibility.

This latest letter by Mr. Pollard is therefore significant, and indefensible, on several clear grounds, outlined below. In seeking to advocate that Guyana ceded sovereignty to the CRC via “procedural technicality”, and his calculated omission of opposing legal precedent, his prescriptions (see points 1-3 below) again border on civic irresponsibility and minisinformation:

Firstly, Mr. Pollard advocates that the provisions of the Guyana constitution, specifically Article 154A which intends to safeguard Guyana’s sovereign right to implement partially or progressively any Treaty or Convention, are somewhat flawed and obnoxious. Where does he derive this rationale? No other place than his unsubstantiated “reservations” that local constitutional provisions taken at the international level may not apply. This is barely disguised deception, since it attempts to legitimise a net disincentive for countries to participate in UN Conventions. It would portend anarchy. No International Treaty wants to be known as the harbinger of anarchy. As outlined in the open letter “Statement Rejecting Ban on Corporal Punishment In Guyana”; http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/statement-rejecting-efforts-to-ban.html ) efforts thus far to rationalize this line of thinking have implicitly, and naively, suggested that Guyana ceded sovereignty when acceding to the CRC.

Secondly, Mr. Pollard notes the report “This Group has ignored the opposing evidence on the issue of corporal punishment”; http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_letters?id=56541795 of March 27”, but ignores the issues therein. Instead, he invokes ghostly and shadowy “legal effects of Caricom States having ratified the Convention on the Rights of The Child “without reservations”. In doing this he is similarly evasive, since, given his legal expertise, he chooses not to reveal the fact that the UN 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."(U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960). And 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."(General Assembly Resolution 52/119, December 12, 1997). These Resolutions were done “without reservation”, possibly with an express intention to thwart anarchy via “procedure”. How does Pollard’s own hesitation now fly?

We now urge all social and political leaders to treat as required reading the Heritage Foundation Report "How the UN Conventions On Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty"; http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm. We do not have to blindly stumble into the bad CRC-experiences of other states. If any of the numerous claims therein are true, there is reason enough to reconsider accession, or else engender a tactical withdrawal to rejoin later with “reservations”. Guyana must not, and cannot, be held hostage to a Convention that has been proven to be anarchical and injurious to the national ethos in many other countries.

Thirdly, Johnny (CJEAP 2005) reveals that the CRC-issue was also given due weight in a more recent dispute involving the rights of parents and teachers to use minor corrective force on children. In the case The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General, 2004, SCC 4) the Supreme Court questioned whether section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the use of reasonable physical correction on children (much as Guyana’s Ministry of Education’s Policy Manual?), violates the best interests of the child principle set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Based on the notion that the Convention describes best interest of the child as ‘a primary consideration’ rather than ‘the primary consideration’ the court found that this principle was not a foundational requirement for the dispensation of justice. However, it did draw upon international law to interpret whether relying on ‘reasonableness’ as a limiting factor in section 43 was constitutionally vague. The court noted “precision on what is reasonable. . . may be derived from international treaty obligations” (Human Rights Internet, 2004b). To this end, in addition to the Convention, the courts examined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations Reports, and the European Convention on Human Rights. It found that these agreements neither clarify reasonableness nor require state parties to ban corporal punishment. What, exactly, gives the CRC precedence over previous Treaties and Declarations? What about if the words “corporal punishment” are not in the CRC text itself?

Giving the CRC “due weight” in Guyana surely does not mean the subversion of the national ethos, and surely does mean that existing constitutional provisions for partial and/or progressive implementation are to be respected.

Implementing the CRC blindly in Guyana will negatively affect the culture and religion of a vast majority of the people of Guyana. Surely this is bad law. The evidence speaks for itself. The government and opposition must at this time find the unity necessary to effect constitutional change consistent with Article 164 of the Constitution. Or else we should move to referendum. Or consider withdrawal from the CRC, if only tactically, to ensure that Guyana’s new accession with reservations are respected.

No country should be held hostage to UN Committee pronouncements made after the signing of the Convention.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
4th April 2008