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

Context:

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

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

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

August 2, 2008

Mr. Dennis Moses
OAS Representative
Guyana Office

Dear Mr. Moses,

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

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

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

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

To what end?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“.... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent....”

4. “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, by Steve Baldwin, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 267 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My specific requests are:

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
Georgetown
Guyana
August 1, 2008

E-mail: RogerWilli@Yahoo.com

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

A copy of the original OAS-resolution follows:

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

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, REAFFIRMING:

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

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

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

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

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

RESOLVES:

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

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

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

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