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.

An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It Out Consultation

AN ADVISORY TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, AND PEOPLE, OF GUYANA …

“AN INITIAL CRITIQUE/ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION EXCHANGED AT A “CONSULTATION” BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF HUMAN SERVICES AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND GUYANA’S RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY ON JANUARY 23, 2008 IN THE BOARDROOM OF THE ETHNIC RELATIONS COMMISSION”

How should the church respond initially? … and thereafter in detail?

Context:

Guyana’s Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Priya Manickchand hosted a two-hour “consultation” with members of the religious community on 1/23/08 in the boardroom of the Ethnic Relations Commission. At issue was the “Stamp It Out” initiative to curb sexual violence against women and children.

Enough material was exchanged during the course of that event to show that the church should take a strong interest in the development of comprehensive draft legislation … as distinct from blindly endorsing the strong punitive bias in the Ministry’s “Stamp It Out” proposals.

This critique summarizes key issues (and their implications) that arose during the consultation, especially those not reported by the local press, and advises on responses.

Kaieteur News (KN) carried a carefully edited and government-biased version of the consultation on 1/24/08, and readers should read same to fill in the gaps. This KN-report reflects the dangerous instinct to conformity that is driving the “Stamp It Out” initiative thus far. Sadly, one can easily detect a complicit media this early in the programme.

Please note that the same article advises that the Ministry hopes to table a Draft Bill in March 2008.

The church should not wait for that date to offer (1) an immediate response to the consultation based on the suggestions below, and (2) a detailed response to the full document itself by February 28, 2008.

Summary of consultation:

Minister Priya Manickchand delivered a 30-minute presentation accompanied with a slideshow that outlined the basics of that “Stamp It Out” (SIO) initiative. Detailed accounts of the proposed reforms are found in the 48-page “Stamp It Out” Consultation Paper available at http://www.gina.gov.gy/. A summary of same reforms is at pages 43-44 of the document.

Key reforms to be addressed were slated as:

1. Abolition of the Preliminary Inquiry (PI) (see pg 25ff in the SIO document)
- PI takes years sometimes, thereafter High Court Trial, result enormous delay.
- Reform will be based on “paper committals” where the bundle of statements given by the prosecution to the defence seven days before the hearing is enough for the magistrate to have a “hearing” and immediately refer the matter to the High Court.
2. Establishment of a Sexual Offences Court
3. Offering an Integrated Services Unit at the Georgetown Hospital for treatment.
4. “Modernizing” sexual offences (see pg. 11 of the SIO document) by making it “gender neutral”.
- moving the classic definition of “rape” as a forcible entry of the vagina by a penis or other object to include penetration of the anus by any other body part (eg penis) or object.
- Increase maximum penalty to life imprisonment, with 7 years as a minimum.
- Addressing “consent” and “coercive circumstances” issues that instead place the burden on the behaviour of the accused rather than that of the victim.

Issues arising out of the "consultation":

1. The SIO document (acquired for the first time by many persons at the consultation’s date 1/23/08) itself notes (page 3) that the “deadline” for responses was 31st December 2007. If pastors had attended any consultation before, the church has to immediately devise strategies for reporting and sharing information in future.

One immediate response by the church should be that the Minister engages the religious community with more immediacy in future on this developing initiative.

Another immediate response should be that the very volume of the issues addressed in the document demands that the church have at least one month after the consultation to research the Ministry’s findings and premises as outlined in the Consultation Paper, and thereafter offer its full and informed view.

2. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that “modernizing” the law relative to rape of males, though well-intentioned, had obvious and immediate implications when considered with (3) below.

Guyana’s criminal laws currently prohibit consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between males whether adults or minors. This includes offences in relation to sexual activity between males, such as s. 351 (gross indecency between males), s. 352 (attempted buggery), s. 353 (buggery) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01, and offences in relation to prostitution, such as s. 356 of Chapter 8:01 and s. 165 of Chapter 8:02 (keeping a common bawdy house) and s. 166 of 8:02 (loitering for the purposes of prostitution).

Adopting (or hijacking) a part of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapters 8:01 which EXPRSSLY PROHIBITS sexual activity between males and offering to use it to deal with a “missing” element under legislation regarding “non-consensual” intercourse in a “special rape court” raises two potential hazards:

- It acts to weaken and possibly demolish the solid walls proscribing (expressly forbidding) homosexual sodomy provided by Ch. 8:01, and replaces it with the alternative prospect of a high-powered team of defence lawyers forcing victims (the Ketley Street boys?) to admit to “consensual” sexual activity for which they were probably paid.

- To the extent that part of the Minister’s well-intentioned but misguided plan now introduces arguments of the crime’s (sodomized rape) “consensual” or “non-consensual” nature, then a door is being opened to argue in future cases about the perpetuator’s or victim’s “sexual orientation” … a right not protected by Guyana’s Laws.

Good medical, legal and societal reasons exist for the solid protection provided by Guyana’s criminal law in this regard, and they have not been eroded by the passage of time, as provided by the solid arguments provided by the law reviews below:

“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

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

“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

… and the following statements by the Surgeon General of the United States of America and other medical authorities, since the Minister claims to be similarly concerned with the current epidemic of HIV/AIDS that is ravaging Guyana:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

“.... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections....” (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 … in the article “Hemorrhoids, Anal Fissure and Condylomata Acuminata”; G. Manligit et al., “Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens,” in the Journal of the American Medical Association 251, 1984 … 237-241; See also J. Richards et al., “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science 224 … 1984 … 390-392; G. Shearer and A. Rabson, “Semen and Aids,” Nature 308 … 1984:230 … as quoted by Roger Magnuson in “Are Gay Rights Right?”).

An immediate suggestion from the church could be that a better approach would be to leave issues of sexual activity between males within the confines of Ch. 8:01 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act and instead ADD “rape” to the list of offences therein proscribed … perhaps as an aggravated addendum to sections 352 (attempted buggery) and 353 (buggery).

Another immediate suggestion by the church should be that penalties under Ch. 8:01 should be increased to reflect those proposed at Annex 2, pg. 45-48, of the Consultation Paper.

3. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that the influence of pornography had its place in the existing situation as described in the Consultation Paper, but the Minister reminded the audience that the Ministry’s consultation document did not consider prostitution, pornography or homosexuality in coming to its conclusions (see s. 14 and s. 15 on pages 2-3 of the Consultation Paper) … deeming them as “complex”.

An immediate suggestion from the church could be that not to address prostitution, pornography and homosexuality in considering the similarly “unnatural activity” that constitutes “rape” reflects an incomplete, possibly reckless, approach by the Ministry that could illustrate similar deficiencies in the Ministry’s assumptions …. and prescriptions. These issues could not be ignored as if they did not exist. Good law is founded on good data, not convenience.

Another immediate suggestion by the church in that regard could be that not to consider the uncensored sale of thousands of “blue” DVD’s on Guyana’s streets (10 for US$5), or not to consider an absolute ban on “homosexual-film festivals” of the sort peddled by a business place (Sidewalk Café) that currently sits less than 50 feet away from a prominent secondary school (Christ Church), was tantamount to irresponsibility on the part of the Minister and the Ministry of Human Services. The Ketley Street Primary incident reminds us that school-children are very vulnerable.

The Ministry of Human Services, and the Ministry of Education, had been written before on the issue, and had not responded.

Finally, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the law review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" cited at (2) above 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.... "

The Minister, paradoxically (she is a lawyer by profession) has inadvertently signalled that she may well choose to ignore the submissions in the law reviews cited above. This would be unwise.

4. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that a period of time was needed for the religious community to study the Consultation Paper and come up with their studied and deliberate response. Ms. Texiera argued that the religious community should come up with a clear moral statement, since the attitude of the various religious texts was clear on the issue. She cited examples.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that they had no problem with the immediate and outright “moral statement” that Ms. Texiera advocated, but that the attendant issues of “mandatory sentencing” and “life imprisonment” outside of a deliberate study and a holistic approach was fraught with danger. It amounted to “locking up the prisoner and throwing away the key”. This was dubious law at best, and decidedly bad law in as porous a legal system as Guyana’s.

5. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that the cover page of her slide show presentation was styled as “A Proposal for the increase in convictions… ”. If this was the sole aim of the project, then there was a possibility that overarching issues relating to available institutional infrastructure and justice would be overlooked.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that a case could easily be made that there was room for more education as much as for draconian sentencing (in an environment of “draconian” rather than “just” sentencing, there will be much room for vindictiveness and abuse).

6. The attention of the Minister was brought to the fact that backward and forward linkages to mandatory treatment for both the perpetuator and victim leaded to considerations of proper staffing of the Ministry with qualified psychiatric staff, distinct from the “social workers” that were currently charged with evaluating only the victim’s state of mind. While the Minister pleaded limited resources, the point was made that the Ministry’s work should begin with hiring competent staff, including qualified psychiatrists and Christian counsellors.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that while the Ministry’s current outlook seemed to be that the best response was increasing the prison population dramatically and throwing way the keys, the mandate of the church inevitably meant a holistic approach that meant early detection of predisposition at home and schools, preventative counselling throughout the life-cycle of profiled perpetrators in workplaces and places of worship, as well as the buttress of punitive penalty. This point was entirely consistent with suggestions made by both Ms. Texiera and the Minister, and fell more logically within the Ministry’s portfolio than the intense punitive agenda apparently denoted in the document (the extent of that punitive agenda would become clear after a detailed study was done of the Consultation Paper).

7. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that again arising out of the stated effort to emulate countries which have, under reform, raised their conviction rates from 4% to 60%, then the overall situation in Guyana might infer that an entire system was at fault and needed fixing.

An immediate response by the church could be to urge the answer to some important questions: Did the government have plans, for example, to build the additional prisons anticipated with a 60% or greater conviction rate. No answer was forthcoming from the Minister at the date of the one-off “consultation”. The Georgetown prison currently holds 1200 prisoners in a facility made for about 500, and is understaffed.

Noticeable in this consultation, and other news reports, are obvious attempts to discredit the Police Force as an important intermediary in investigation, prosecution and deterrence … illustrated in the Minister’s condescending remarks about “crappy” Police Force members (see newspaper reports), when the same comments could easily be levelled at the administration of the judiciary, the unfilled vacancies in the court system, the proliferation of acting appointments therein, and a notoriously lax court system, and the Minister’s own intransigence and indifference to the proliferation of video-pornography on the streets of Georgetown.

The GPF’s (countervailing?) views on the environmental influence on their organizational efficiency posed by the availability of pornography, joblessness, poverty, poor salaries, an oppressive tax regime and general economic deprivation are never aired at these sessions, and a climate of distrust is perhaps unwittingly being engendered against the police.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be a caution to the Minister that this continuous derogation of the GPF in the course of this effort at reform is short-sighted and counterproductive, and that the positive reinforcement of good investigative work by an underpaid, undermanned, under trained Police Force must be seen as much of a priority as getting High court convictions. A collaborative rather than confrontational approach should be encouraged.

9. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that good law is based on good data. While the Minister in presentation used only one set of data from “a 2005 study”, what was not clear was the author, terms of reference and reliability of the study. There also appear to be numerous references to “studies show” and “research shows” in the Consultation Paper without citing specific sources.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that meaningful consultation with as diverse a community as Guyana’s religious bodies needs more than 90 minutes.

10. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the need to establish a Men’s Affair Bureau to address the issues that men affect men in Guyana’s society … this especially given the male stereotyping typical of these proposed reforms . The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry advised that the aim was not to engender a climate of “them against us” and that the aim was a gender-neutral solution. The paradox here is that while nothing of the perpetrators profiled seemed gender neutral, the Ministry’s solution was seeking to be.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that the Ministry consider with more diligence the issue of a Men’s Affair Bureau however conceptualized, and request persons to submit memoranda on how it should be constituted.

11. The attention of the Minister was drawn by a member of the religious community that he was a head of a home, and, having been exposed to Religious Education (RE), felt a severe disconnect with the debauchery and horror of the numerous tales of incest and molestation. Yet another point was made by a presenter that the horror situation described by the Minister in her presentation could in fact infer that Moral Education (ME) in schools had failed. For the Ministry to then offer that “many perpetrators know about religious education” was disingenuous, since if the increase of assaults could be traced to a time after the introduction of Moral Education, then there was a valid case for doing away with it. Another contributor suggested “Values Education”, but this is synonymous with ME.

An immediate suggestion by the church could be that the reintroduction of RE rather than ME in schools would be an immediate part of proposed reforms, since, as Ms. Texiera pointedly asserted, each of the three great religions’ texts denounce rape with some intensity. We should note that Christianity, in particular, has a clear system of values that begins with “Thou shalt not”, and this is revered as a code of conduct by millions.

Another immediate suggestion could be that the Ministry of Education provide data to show if there was a correlation between the time of the removal of religious education in schools and the increase in incidents of molestation, etc. Ideally, this study should be done by an independent body. Gross methodological and factual faults in previous studies immediately rule out the ERC as the author or facilitator of any such study.

12. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that members of the religious community would support other measures in addition to increased jail time:

- Mandatory intervention via counselling and psychiatric help by the state in initial instances of abuse as reported by the Police.
- Strong parole system rather than enactment of “no possibility of parole” sentencing.
- Mandatory counselling for all parties.
- Severity of punishment for convictions related to rape.
- Re-examination of policy on bail
- Use of limited and extended restraining orders relative to homes and schools.
- Use of adult corporal punishment (whippings) as valid deterrents.

Roger Williams
January 24, 2008

Response to Killing at Lusignan in Guyana 1 26 08

Context: Guyana woke up on Saturday 26th January to the horror of the news of 11 of its citizens killed by an armed gang of marauders in Lusignan. It resembled a similar attack on another village, Agricola, in March 2006, in which 8 persons of a different ethnicity died. Sadly, no period of national mourning was declared at that time.

Twenty-four hours later, a predictably inadequate, and certainly premature, scenario of speculation began to play itself out. One newspaper (recklessly?) drew a parallel between this latest incident and the adjoining and troubled village of Buxton, eloquently illustrating that village’s “character” in the shape of a grenade with its pin invitingly pointed to the reader. There was no thought that 99% of that village is similarly traumatized by criminal gang (and police/military) activity. There was no proof offered of culpability. But as an invitation to racial connotation, the point was made. What price subtlety and investigative journalism?

Similarly, predictable calls in the letters section of that newspaper for the government’s petition to the USA for the “release” of Shaheed “Roger” Khan seem to forget that hundreds were killed during Khan’s self-styled (and state-accommodated?) campaign of vigilante adventure.

Former Minister Ronald Gajraj, also implicated thereby, was also shouted for. Now, no one ever sees these bandits, none are ever captured alive, police patrols are always distant, and little progress is made in investigations. Have Gajraj's and Khan's "Phantom (Death) Squads" been reactivated? Is this a terrible hoax being played out on Guyana and Guyanese, as evil men play out a parody consistent with the obvious and deliberate destruction of local parliamentary democracy (see “Needs Assessment of the Guyana national Assembly”; http://www.parliament.gov.gy/sirdaviesreport.pdf ) and its equally damning sequel (“Addendum to the Needs Assessment … ”; http://www.sdnp.org.gy/parliament/sirdavies_addendum.pdf ).

Robert H. Knight reminds us that societal chaos ushers in tyrants who promise to restore order by any means.

And everyone now seems to forget previous appeals to the government to limit its indiscriminate distribution of gun licences to its supporters (see “30,012 gun licences Guyana Review June 1999”). Has the amount doubled by now? The Ethnic Relations Commission has in the past consistently refused to address the ethnicity of persons to whom the licences have been distributed. The administration (see “The President’s wild statement about guns is irresponsible” at http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_archive?id=56501920; and also “Killing the Guyana Review, and a story about 30,012 weapons” at http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-251--7-7--.html) has been studiously silent on the issue. Haven’t we learnt anything from Rwanda? Is this what “The Foreign Exchange of Hate” warned us about? Who wins in these situations?

And now … an appeal to reason, to justice, to forgiveness, to a new start, to a withdrawal of the weapons.

Dear Editor,

Enough is enough! This nonsense must stop!

I condemn the murder of 11 citizens of Guyana in Lusignan yesterday Saturday 26th January 2008, and call upon the Guyana Police Force to spare no effort or resource to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice.

Fuelled by sin in our nation, homicidal demons of murder, violence and racism stalk our land … and now they must be stopped, by every spiritual and physical resource the nation can bring to bear.

In addition to racism, our national enemies are murder and violence, not each other. We must condemn and denounce every instance of their manifestation. We must all fight against murder and violence and racism, together, as one people.

In March 2006, a similar tragedy was foisted upon the community of Agricola, and eight people were left dead.

In the agony of this latest of many senseless tragedies, speculation runs rife, and emotions run hot, and many citizens will be tempted to forget the many proud moments of our nation’s past, and the present and future opportunities of unity in diversity embodied in our national motto: “One People, One Nation, One Destiny!”

But we must not forget! We must be mature! We must be calm, even as we grieve for our fallen countrymen!

Like thieves in the night, these killers and their principals have disappeared to their lairs of iniquity, their dens of evil. However, God’s Word tells us what this evil is, and what this evil does … in Psalm 57:20-21:

“But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.”

We must all confront the wicked, and overcome and replace evil’s restlessness with God’s peace … not peace at any price … not appeasement … but peace with honour and justice per Stott.

Too many … hundreds of every race and creed … have died in Guyana in the past decade for us to not now consider truly unified efforts at achieving this Godly peace. After Stott, Christians should and must stress the need to look beyond the defeat and surrender of the national enemy … to its repentance and rehabilitation. The punishment of evil is an essential part of God’s moral government of the world, but retributive and reformative justice go hand in hand. Even then, the highest and noblest of all attitudes to evil is to seek to overcome it with good.

Now, since righteousness exalts a nation, and despite the death and distrust in our historical past, forgiveness is the place where we begin this noble national experiment. Withdrawing the thousands of weapons recklessly distributed marks its ending.

We of sounder minds at this hour of national grief must forgive each other for our past sins against each other and against God, and unite to rid Guyana of the triple evils of murder, violence and racism.

Christians should/must now offer their support and presence to the authorities in their visit to every village on the East Coast, and in Guyana generally, to spread this message.

Evil will only succeed when good men do nothing!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

27th January 2008

Buju Banton: Boom Bye Bye's Inconvenient Truth, Part-2 ... The "Other" Words In The Song

Boom Bye Bye: An Inconvenient Truth Part 2 ...The “other” words in the song!

Context:

An investigation of the "other" words in Boom Bye Bye, illustrating that gay militants have latched on to controversial lyrics in the chorus in order to hide the devastating denunciation provided by the other words in the song!

Dear Editor,

Justin DeFreitas (KN 10/31/07) and Lutchman Gossai (GC 10/31/07) enter into a torrent of rage regarding the article “Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”: http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archieve%2030-10-07.html#Anchor-----------------14631). Justin DeFreitas’ “Song Incites Criminal Violence” allows for effective rebuttal.

They offer no facts, no countervailing evidence to the torrent of material offered in that article. As always, it is the ad hominem argument that is used in rebuttal, the subtle plea to ignorance, the deceptive semantic sand-dance of the intellectual snake. In extraordinary leaps of simple-minded effrontery, they infer that the article supports murder. Nothing could be further from the truth!

So this response is about the conceptual trap that they both walked into, because Part 1 (“Gay militancy represents more fear and danger”) was precisely structured so that persons would ask the question: “What does all of Buju’s song really say?”

It will come as no surprise that millions around the world, after hearing Boom Bye Bye, did not go out and assassinate people. Buju has apparently failed miserably at that aim. So what, really, was Buju trying to convey … other than “gunplay” … that makes the song so astonishingly popular, and appealing, to the instinctive sense of truth for untold millions!

It will come as a surprise to many that it is the catchy “chorus” of “Boom Bye Bye” that gay militancy and DeFreitas has latched on to … in a desperate attempt to silence the two main verses of Buju’s outspoken song that illustrate great social and Christian truths. They have hitherto been artfully hidden by the “gunplay” outcry of the gay militant community, but are even more damaging to their cause if the song is allowed to be ventilated. The verses illustrate the innate wrong that homosexuality represents:

“.... (Two man) Hitch up on an rub up on … An lay down inna bed … Hug up on another … Anna feel up leg …”

“Don't want Jackie … Give dem Paul instead … Dem don't want di sweetness …Between di leg … Gal bend down backway … An accept di peg … An if it really hot … You know she still naw gon fled … A some man … Still don't want di … Panty raid … Pure batty business … dem love …”

“(Woman is di) Greatest thing … God ever put pon di land … Buju lovin dem from head … Down to foot bottom … But some man a … turn around … Where dem get that from … Peter is not for Janet … Peter is for John … Suzette is not for Paul … Suzette is for Ann … Where the bobocloth … Dem get dat from … Here come the DJ … Name Buju Banton … (Come fi …Straighten yuh talk?),,,,”

The science we refer to, and which DeFreitas denies so scornfully, is illustrated below, and illustrates the astonishing fact that what the Bible outlines in only a few sentences has taken us thousands of years to rationalize in various scientific journals. It is again astonishing that Buju Banton arrives intuitively at the same conclusions as these reports:

"The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice." ("Condoms and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239)

David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections....."

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and 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 Gossai’s arguments:

".... 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 ...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2clevenger.PDF). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. DeFreitas needs no “facts” for his letter, only innuendo, and the hapless gullibility of those who will not read!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University’s “Homosexuality: Truth Be Told” Law Review series (http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/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 paedophilia ...."

Homosexuality is not a civil right, it is a civil wrong! … And it is in that sense only that Gossai should appreciate the raw metaphor of Boom Bye Bye.

DeFreitas and Gossai will not touch one word of the evidence quoted above … we can bet on that.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Williams

3rd November 2007