Banning Bounty Killer and Movado: Season of Madness in Guyana

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 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and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn.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 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 5, 2008

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

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

Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court Legal Disaster

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

13th December 2007

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

Context:

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

Using the occasion of the “Guyana Music Festival”, SASOD's newest (but not unexpected) effort at destabilizing morality and the existing criminal law in Guyana is the ad hominem argument, in which sanctimonious outbursts are being used to appeal to sympathy, each occasion typified by a deliberate avoidance of anything factual that refutes their arguments. The "advice" given to the government in these letters is similarly deficient.

Christians and Caribbean citizens generally must now return to the facts, and offer the Minister of Home Affairs, the Police Commissioner, the Ministry of Culture, and the Governments of Guyana and Jamaica more meaningful information that will inform their discernment of who the real criminals are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

28 October, 2007