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
Showing posts with label Roger Williams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Williams. Show all posts
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Mahadeo Panchu's Atheism, like Darwinism, begins and ends with ... nothing!
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
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
Saturday, December 26, 2009
I have to believe! ... a response to "rationalist" Ian McDonald
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
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
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Response To BC Pires on the "Ideal Caribbean Person"
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
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"
Defending CARICOM: A Response to the Stabroek News’ Editorial “Ideal Caribbean Person”!
September 26, 2008
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.
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
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
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Rebuttal to Michel Sidibe' & UNAIDS on 377 judgement by New Delhi High Court
Kaieteur News of July 9, 2009,
"The Delhi High Court Decision Should Be Rejected, not Lauded"
Dear Editor,
The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe (Kaieteur News 8/7/09) is disturbing in its whimsical disregard for science, medicine, the extant law, and the truth. It can be rebutted on several distinct grounds, each of which illustrates that Sidibe has taken the unprofessional step of arguing his case with innuendo rather than fact.
In taking the opposite posture, our approach offers the detail and evidence that all citizens need to make responsible personal and corporate decisions.
Earlier, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned “A Departure FromProfessional Conduct” ; 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
Saturday, July 11, 2009
A DEADLY STORM OF RHETORIC IN GUYANA ABOUT CARICOM AND THE EPA
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!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
