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

Publish date: May 26, 2008

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, Dr. Prado is facetious and disingenuous in implying that the comments of PAHO’s Dr. Mirta Roses suggest the altogether ridiculous position that any opposition to Same-Sex Attraction Disorders represents “hatred against people with different sexual orientations”. In fact it shows the opposite (commendable professionalism) since no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled when he said: "But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being". The issue, we should remind UNAIDS, care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”.

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

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

It also illustrates that Prado’s fanciful flight from wishful thinking to insipid outburst is based on nothing else than a cruel disregard for public safety and order. Mr. Prado ignores the astonishing evidence in the law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ). Again, Mr. Prado’s professional usefulness, and his integrity as a representative for UNAIDS in Guyana, has obviously been compromised. We have shown CDC figures at page 5 of the online report “An Initial Critique of the National Assessment” (www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) that illustrate that disease and child molestation defines the death-style that Prado and SASOD are sworn to protect, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhea, gonorrhea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites (in addition to the incidence of HIV) in Guyana. What are the facts for Guyana? In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control advocates that, contrary to popular media reports, MSM’s and bisexuals as a group are the most effective vehicle for the spread of HIV.

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 26th 2008

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

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

First, no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Simpson’s arguments, when he said: "But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being". The issue, we should remind care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”. We have addressed some of these issues and arguments in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter” .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

May 24th 2008

Sasod Attempting to Influence Health Sector Policy in Guyana

Publishing date: May 24th 2008

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

First, no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Simpson’s arguments, when he said: "But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being". The issue, we should remind care-givers and health workers, should remain “behaviour modification” rather than “accommodation”. We have addressed some of these issues and arguments in the online summary “A Response to Vikram Seth’s Open Letter”.

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

May 24th 2008

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

Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality

The online article "Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality", formerly found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality, can now be found at the following locations:

1. http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY

2.

3.

Alternatively, readers can post messages to this board (with their e-mail addresses) requesting copies. I will respond as quickly as possible.

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