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

GENOCIDE IN GUYANA: THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

GENOCIDE IN GUYANA: THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

Following the articles “The Marginalization of Persons of African Origin in Guyana” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/marginalization-of-persons-of-african.html ) and “30012 Gun Licences Guyana Review June 1999” we now have confirmation via the US Court System that a terrorist group headed by Shaheed “Roger” Khan led a criminal enterprise that was responsible for the extra-judicial deaths of hundreds of (mainly Black?) Guyanese since 1992.

Ronald Austin, for one, in his article “Genocide”

(http://www.caribimpact.net/v3_72_feature_5.html ) puts the toll at over 400, while yet others point to “1,107 Guyanese murdered between 2001 and 2007”.

The Ethnic Relations Commission and the government of Guyana still have not officially revealed the ethnicity of those killed, or to whom the government has distributed thousands of weapons.

The text of the Stabroek News Report on the revelations in the US Court System is reproduced below, and will be updated daily as developments occur.

Roger Williams
May 15, 2008

"Judge finds need for anonymous jury in Roger Khan case; US gov’t source: ‘Phantom Squad’ killed over 200 here..."
May 15, 2008 (http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14354 )

".... Guyanese drug accused Roger Khan’s criminal history and his alleged participation in a large scale criminal enterprise were among points a US judge considered in ruling in favour of an anonymous jury and a US government source has said that the infamous phantom squad murdered over 200 persons here.

Judge Dora Irizarry issued the order on Tuesday. This means that the names, addresses and workplaces of members of the jury would not be revealed and that they would eat lunch together and be accompanied to and from the courthouse each day by the United States Marshals Service.

Justice Irizarry is of the opinion that the dangerousness of the defendant, as is alleged by the prosecution, is a fact worth considering since according to one of the government’s confidential sources the “Phantom Squad” Khan was associated with is responsible for “at least 200 extra-judicial killings from 2002 to 2006” in Guyana.

Roger Khan

And while he is not charged with crimes considered to be violent in nature, his involvement with and leadership of a criminal organisation indicates his “propensity for violence.”

Khan through his lawyers had opposed the government’s motion and had argued that an anonymous jury was unnecessary as the government failed to establish that jurors needed protection and that such measures, in particular the partial sequestering of jurors, would have an unduly prejudicial effect on him.

However, the judge found that the empanelling of an anonymous and partially sequestered jury was necessary to protect the interest of the public and the jurors.

According to court documents seen by this newspaper in support of its argument for the sequestering of the jury, the prosecution had contended that an anonymous and partially sequestered jury was necessary to ensure the public’s interest in an impartial verdict and to protect prospective jurors.

The judge, in making her ruling, pointed out that there was evidence of Khan’s willingness to tamper with the judicial process since he admitted that in 1993 he successfully evaded federal prosecution in Vermont for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon by absconding to Guyana while on bail. That action, the judge said, indicated his ability to tamper with the judicial process in the US.

The judge added that the government’s confidential sources had indicated that Khan would not hesitate to order the killing of anyone he believed was aiding the US government in investigating and prosecuting him and his alleged criminal organisation. US government sources further alleged that Khan ordered the murder of one of his alleged narcotics associates, whom he believed was cooperating with the government. Justice Irizarry also pointed out that the court had to issue an order prohibiting Khan’s lawyers from making statements to the press to protect cooperating witnesses.

Khan had contended that the government could not rely on conduct occurring outside of the US, but the judge found this to be misplaced since the relevant inquiry was the willingness to tamper and not the location of the tampering.

Inaccurate news sources:

Justice Irizarry also found that Khan’s contention that the government relied improperly on inaccurate Guyanese news sources lacked merit and held that the prosecution relied on more than just news articles in support of its allegations of the defendant’s dangerousness. She stated that the potential for juror intimidation by the anticipated media coverage of the trial supported empanelling an anonymous and partially sequestered jury.

Khan had admitted that his case “generated a substantial amount of publicity in Guyana” and this continued up to this day, the judge noted, giving the example of the government’s April 24 letter, which appeared the very next day on the front page of the Stabroek News.

“In fact, the Guyanese press reports on most developments as they occur in this case,” Justice Irizarry said.

She added that based on the nature of the coverage to date, the court found that there was a substantial likelihood that the names, addresses, and workplaces of the jurors would be reported immediately.

She said Khan’s contention that the jurors were not affected by media sources disseminating news outside the district lacked merit. “Consistent media coverage, even if minimal, provides support for anonymity as coverage enhances the ‘possibility that jurors’ names would become public and thus expose them to intimidation by defendants’ friends or enemies, or harassment by the public’,” the judge said.

She pointed out that any information published online in Guyana was available in the US and elsewhere.

Moreover, the concern is amplified by the fact that the (New York) district is home to the largest Guyanese population living outside Guyana and it would be unreasonable to assume that the case would not be followed by members of the Guyanese community.

Further, the judge said, local sources have covered the case as the New York Daily News has often sat in on status conferences. However, Justice Irizarry said, the court was mindful of its duty to protect Khan’s constitutional rights and in order to preserve the presumption of innocence would provide prospective jurors with a neutral explanation of the reason for their anonymity and partial sequestration.

Khan is charged with an eighteen-count indictment of distribution, importation, and possession of cocaine and engaging as a principal administrator, organiser, and leader of a continuing criminal enterprise in New York and elsewhere.

He is accused of heading a powerful, violent, cocaine trafficking organisation out of Guyana. He faces a maximum penalty of life in prison if convicted".

Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com/
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/?p=14354
Image: http://www.stabroeknews.com/images/2008/05/roger1.jpg

Bounty Killer and Movado Were Easy targets for the Minister

Publish date: May 5, 2008

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2898330/Bounty-Killer-and-Movado-were-easy-targets-for-the-Minister

The areas highlighted in gold were deleted by Stabroek News

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians in Parliament. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s Ignition Concert is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled Black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words.

And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 5th 2008

Banning Bounty Killer and Movado: Season of Madness in Guyana

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2811353/Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-Season-of-madness-in-Guyana
The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s "Ignition Concert" is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

May 5, 2008

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

Publish Date: May 8, 2008.

Original location: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2758952/Season-of-madness-Banning-Bounty-Killer-Movado-invoking-security-threats-and-accommodating-gay-militancy-in-Guyana

The highlighted gold text shows the parts of the letter that were deleted by Stabroek News.

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s newest season of madness is at hand. How long will the brightest minds among us be silent? The noble aspirations of a maturing democracy are being sacrificed on the altar of less-than-subtle anti-Christian political positions and gay militancy!

Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee, is unenvied in this mission. It must be no joy to find yourself catapulted to the dizzying heights of de-facto point-man for the effort.

In January 2007, Rohee accused Christians (yes, Christians en mass!) of being a “threat to national security” because of their open and clear opposition to casino gambling. The day after a local newspaper published a rebuttal and clarification to the effect that his claim was ridiculous, that newspaper had its quota of government advertisments withdrawn. Coincidence? The withdrawal has never been explained outside of peripheral references to “circulation” and no evidence in that regard was offered. The reinstatement appears to coincide with a new and very militant editorial policy at SN. In what direction? To what end?

Not to be outdone by his efforts of a few days earlier, Rohee thereafter joined his parliamentary colleague Desiree Fox in making the most atrocious statements against Christians on the casino gambling issue. A private Presidential “apology” and promise to the heads of the Christian Community that it would not happen again did not erase the refusal of both parliamentarians to apologize for their ridiculous statements. The comments still remain on the official record for parliament.

Gay militancy has in the past launched an unprecedented attack on Black artistes visiting Guyana, the clear message being that their opposition to homosexual criminality and deathstyle (see the law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”) is to be silenced. This has usually meant that artistic licence has to be silenced, and Rohee has just accommodated that endeavour. The lesson of Stephanie Phillips’ article “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime” is ignored. And Ted Byfield’s account of Canadian Richard Kempling’s trial by terror in the name of human rights (“Only a few Defended the Teacher”) in of all places Canada falls on deaf ears. The story of Buju Banton (“Boom Bye Bye’s Inconvenient Truth Part 2”) is a local illustration of the technique. Jamaican reggae superstars seem to be the only ones who dare to confront gay militancy these days!

Minister of Social Services Priya Manickchand in her otherwise noble effort at the “Stamp It Out” campaign against domestic and sexual violence, refuses to acknowledge the role that homosexuality, prostitution and pornography play in the violence against women and children. The Ministry considers these fundamental issues “too complex”, and apparently ignores the evidence of the vulnerability of Guyanese children at two local schools in the online article “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp It out Consultation”.

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) is forced off Guyanese television after six socially positive years of broadcasting to Guyanese, and its rival Daystar follows a similar fate a few months after. Paradoxically, the Inter Religious Organization makes no comment denouncing the move, apparently accommodates and approves the most riotous music in its stead being played at this hour on STVS 21/72, and a querulous IRO-Chairman at a meeting called at Red House claims “not to see the relevance of an IRO statement for the reinstatement of TBN”. In the meantime, the same person is appointed to the executive of an “Inter Religious TV Channel”, following a “Presidential” direction. This is folly and recklessness inhabiting the same space.

The air is thick with rumour that a very public Christian Good Friday event in the centre of Georgetown’s business district was paid for by cheques issued from the Office of the President. Who organized this event? Who spoke at that forum? Can someone clarify /verify this?

Now Movado is accused of being a “security threat” for absolutely no reason, much as the church was in 2006, and Bounty Killer is vilified in the by now very pro-gay inserts and letter-licences in, of all newspapers, the Stabroek News.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee on April 29 announces that “Bounty Killer is banned from the jurisdiction”. He offers no formal written statement for us to dissect, but leaves the justification for the obvious sabotage of Bounty Killer’s "Ignition Concert" is in no other place than the staff writers of Stabroek News, who unwittingly intertwine gay militant explanations to the unfortunate events of a night of sabotage amid lax security. They even manage to include the troubled black village of Buxton in the concoction, blaming it on Bounty Killer even after we know it was the local DJs that mouthed those unfortunate words.

Astonishingly, there is no public reprimand for the Police who fired shots into the air to make an already bad situation worse. No attempt was apparently made to arrest the bottle-throwers who were venting at the malfunctioning audio set.

The Stabroek News’ “The Scene” article of April 26 then relegates the press release by the promoters correcting the obvious inaccuracies in their previous report to pages 6C and 8C while its derogation of Bounty Killer gets Page 2C bold-face billing and cartoon. Is this the new direction of Stabroek News?

And 56% of the population still doesn’t get it! And the brightest and best in our country continue to say nothing!

And it’s all being done in the name of gay militancy! And Rohee offers himself up as chief facilitator to the feeding frenzy that will now follow. The Minister’s was an incredible (but by now familiar) over-reaction that pandered to the sentiments of the gay lobby. They will now claim to own his actions … and words. And you will find no local newspaper editorial, or “The Scene” article, advocating the online law review “Child Moleststion and the Homosexual Movement”, or advocating that it is child molestation, pedophilia and pornography that need to be banned in Guyana. The Home Affairs Minister does NOT list these as the crimes against that Guyanese people that he is working on. Now gay militancy leads worldwide efforts in this regard.

Bounty Killer and Movado were just easy targets for the Home Affairs Minister, much as the church was in 2007.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
May 5, 2008

ADVOCACY OF REMOVAL OF CP (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) SENSELESS

(The letter "ADVOCACY OF REMOVAL OF CP (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) SENSELESS" appears in the Guyana Chronicle of April 8, 2008; and also online at http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2002-04-08.html#Anchor------------55642

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by Michael Hackett (SN 28/03/08) captioned “The Christian position on corporal punishment is anything but uniform”, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Hackett’s letter is remarkable in the amount of issues it avoids.

The caption is unfortunate, since the issue at stake is not the defence of Christian “uniformity” on the issue of CP, as much as it is about addressing the nexus between secular research and the compelling Biblical position on corporal punishment (pages 25-27 of the online Dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA; http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ); and so the senselessness of advocating the removal of CP from a range of disciplinary measures available to the teacher and parents. In this latter regard, David Benatar (http://www.corpun.com/benatar.htm ) is blunt:

“.... In the first instance, my arguments, although lengthy, have been directed against a radical yet commonly held view -- that corporal punishment should never be inflicted. I have sought to show that this position is untenable, even though the arguments for it do show that frequent and severe physical punishment is morally wrong … My view is that the empirical data, insofar as I have understood them, are insufficient to defend the extreme view that physical punishment should never be administered....”

Radical view? Extreme view? The bigger “CRC” picture seems lost to pro-ban activists. In fact, Hackett and Radzik et al never address the fact that UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14, 1960, reiterated in General Assembly Resolution 52/119 of December 12, 1997, says that "Nothing contained (herein) shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter". They do not challenge these resolutions.

It gets worse. Radzik et al, and now Hackett, never deny that the Heritage Foundation has revealed that ".... the UN's longstanding respect for the right of soverign nations to set their own domestic policies has yielded to a new countercultural agenda espoused in UN committee reports and documents particularly those relating to the implementation of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC)...." , articulating its stunning evidence in Patrick Fagan’s meticulous report: "How the UN Conventions on Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion and Soverignity" (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm ). They do not challenge a single point of this report. This is grossly inept scholarship, or else deliberate misinformation.

Hackett never addresses Dr. Mark Hartwig’s diagnosis of an assault on sovereignty and the granting of undue influence to special interests that seems integral to local CRC ambitions (“False Promises: How the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Undermines National Sovereignty, the Legitimate Role of Parents and the Well-Being of Children“; http://www.worldfamilypolicy.org/New%20Page/Forum/2001/Hartwig.pdf ), implying that at least five local NGO’s closely associated with the NCRC may have “consultative status" with the body, and could therefore be seen to be seeking to usurp the Ministry of Education’s outlook and legal authority on the issue of CP. He chooses to “ignore” the implications.

While we note Hackett’s, and Radzik’s careful avoidance of the term “CRC” in this latest attack, neither of them challenge any of Dr. Hartwig’s contentions that the provisions of the CRC are unacceptable because of the following five reasons:

(1) They allow excessive breadth of interpretation;
(2) They give the Committee on the Rights of the Child virtually unlimited jurisdiction;
(3) They give undue influence to special interests;
(4) They undermine the legitimate role of parents; and
(5) They advance policies that intrude on national sovereignty.

Hackett never denies that dossier’s account that the Convention itself also stipulates that due account must be taken of “the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child”, and that the guidelines for the corporal punishment of learners set out on page 21 of the Guyana Ministry of Education’s “Manual of Guidelines for the Maintenance of Order and Discipline in Schools”, published in April 2002, adequately addresses the Convention’s call. Withdrawing CP from a range of disciplinary measures serves no useful purpose! Outstanding scholars have been produced by Guyana in an environment of caring but firm discipline.

Hackett, in his treatment, denies the dossier’s position that Robert Larzelere’s report “Sweden’s Smacking Ban: More Harm than Good” (http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/sweden_smacking.pdf) rudely illustrates the astonishing fact that Sweden suffered a 519% increase in child-on-child assaults after the ban in the 20 years following (Wittrock 1995). Hackett never challenges Darren Bahaw’s account of an urgent call for CP in the Trinidad Express, Port of Spain, 17 June 2004 (http://www.corpun.com/tts00406.htm ). He ignores the evidence the dossier provides!

Readers should understand that a formidable array of resources and academic opinion exist on the issue of corporal punishment (see "Resources: Corporal Punishment of Children" by Dr. Paul Poelstra at the URL http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/). These generally support the Judeo-Christian position on corporal punishment, and Hackett is deceitful in inferring otherwise.

The Judeo-Christian position advocates freedom to choose to not use CP, but compels Christians and citizens to be cognisant of its rightful and justifiable place in a scheme of disciplinary measures.

Good law is based on good data, and this is precisely what the online dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) seeks to provide for the legal and political community in Guyana. Hackett usually uses jingoistic sound-bytes to further his causes, but a closer look at his work usually reveals a shocking lack of detailed treatment.

It is imperative as we mature as a nation that we adopt social policies consistent with a sound awareness of current issues. Anything else cheapens the effort of heroes in our past, and makes us seem incompetent to future generations.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams

April 5, 2008

Brynmor Pollard: Folly and Civic Irresponsibility on the Issue of Corporal Punishment in Guyana

Dear Editor,

I had mentioned before that an astonishing degree of activist subterfuge has driven the CRC-driven effort in various states thus far. It thrives on the unawareness and unpreparedness of citizens. As context, the reader will be astonished to know that the High Court in Israel accepted no submissions, took no evidence, considered no memoranda, and ruled on the issue of CP while considering another case altogether. Brynmor Pollard, in his letter (SN 2/04/08) does not disappoint. In Pollard’s comments we have a citizen choosing to ignore the horror stories and urging the Government to tolerate same “in the best interest of the nation”. This is folly!

Good law is based on good data. The online dossier “THE CASE FOR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN GUYANA” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eea35859-4f7a-4b67-b892-a43a792951ee/THE-CASE-FOR-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-IN-GUYANA ) seeks to provide politicians, social leaders and legal minds with a concise framework of references around which a national consensus can be engineered.

In responding to a letter by another legal luminary in Guyana, Keith Massiah, on the same subject, (see “Former Guyana Chief Justice Massiah has it all wrong on the Corporal Punishment Issue”; http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/former-guyana-chief-justice-has-it-all.html ) I had alluded to the very narrow legal vision of that pronouncement. Massiah had, as Pollard now does, in fact chosen to ignore a plethora of attendant issues. This type of vision, it is easy to argue, never promotes good social policy and the national ethos. It illustrates profound civic irresponsibility.

This latest letter by Mr. Pollard is therefore significant, and indefensible, on several clear grounds, outlined below. In seeking to advocate that Guyana ceded sovereignty to the CRC via “procedural technicality”, and his calculated omission of opposing legal precedent, his prescriptions (see points 1-3 below) again border on civic irresponsibility and minisinformation:

Firstly, Mr. Pollard advocates that the provisions of the Guyana constitution, specifically Article 154A which intends to safeguard Guyana’s sovereign right to implement partially or progressively any Treaty or Convention, are somewhat flawed and obnoxious. Where does he derive this rationale? No other place than his unsubstantiated “reservations” that local constitutional provisions taken at the international level may not apply. This is barely disguised deception, since it attempts to legitimise a net disincentive for countries to participate in UN Conventions. It would portend anarchy. No International Treaty wants to be known as the harbinger of anarchy. As outlined in the open letter “Statement Rejecting Ban on Corporal Punishment In Guyana”; http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/statement-rejecting-efforts-to-ban.html ) efforts thus far to rationalize this line of thinking have implicitly, and naively, suggested that Guyana ceded sovereignty when acceding to the CRC.

Secondly, Mr. Pollard notes the report “This Group has ignored the opposing evidence on the issue of corporal punishment”; http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article_letters?id=56541795 of March 27”, but ignores the issues therein. Instead, he invokes ghostly and shadowy “legal effects of Caricom States having ratified the Convention on the Rights of The Child “without reservations”. In doing this he is similarly evasive, since, given his legal expertise, he chooses not to reveal the fact that the UN Charter itself states that "Nothing contained [herein] shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."(U.N. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960). And a 1960 General Assembly Resolution states that "All peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory."(General Assembly Resolution 52/119, December 12, 1997). These Resolutions were done “without reservation”, possibly with an express intention to thwart anarchy via “procedure”. How does Pollard’s own hesitation now fly?

We now urge all social and political leaders to treat as required reading the Heritage Foundation Report "How the UN Conventions On Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty"; http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm. We do not have to blindly stumble into the bad CRC-experiences of other states. If any of the numerous claims therein are true, there is reason enough to reconsider accession, or else engender a tactical withdrawal to rejoin later with “reservations”. Guyana must not, and cannot, be held hostage to a Convention that has been proven to be anarchical and injurious to the national ethos in many other countries.

Thirdly, Johnny (CJEAP 2005) reveals that the CRC-issue was also given due weight in a more recent dispute involving the rights of parents and teachers to use minor corrective force on children. In the case The Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General, 2004, SCC 4) the Supreme Court questioned whether section 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits the use of reasonable physical correction on children (much as Guyana’s Ministry of Education’s Policy Manual?), violates the best interests of the child principle set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Based on the notion that the Convention describes best interest of the child as ‘a primary consideration’ rather than ‘the primary consideration’ the court found that this principle was not a foundational requirement for the dispensation of justice. However, it did draw upon international law to interpret whether relying on ‘reasonableness’ as a limiting factor in section 43 was constitutionally vague. The court noted “precision on what is reasonable. . . may be derived from international treaty obligations” (Human Rights Internet, 2004b). To this end, in addition to the Convention, the courts examined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations Reports, and the European Convention on Human Rights. It found that these agreements neither clarify reasonableness nor require state parties to ban corporal punishment. What, exactly, gives the CRC precedence over previous Treaties and Declarations? What about if the words “corporal punishment” are not in the CRC text itself?

Giving the CRC “due weight” in Guyana surely does not mean the subversion of the national ethos, and surely does mean that existing constitutional provisions for partial and/or progressive implementation are to be respected.

Implementing the CRC blindly in Guyana will negatively affect the culture and religion of a vast majority of the people of Guyana. Surely this is bad law. The evidence speaks for itself. The government and opposition must at this time find the unity necessary to effect constitutional change consistent with Article 164 of the Constitution. Or else we should move to referendum. Or consider withdrawal from the CRC, if only tactically, to ensure that Guyana’s new accession with reservations are respected.

No country should be held hostage to UN Committee pronouncements made after the signing of the Convention.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
4th April 2008