Dharma and the Issue of Racism in Guyana

Dear Editor,

Guyana is in the middle of a silent, deadly, social upheaval, one aspect being referred to by a leading Caribbean economist as the “insertion of criminal enterprise into the interstices of the state”. The recent extraordinary outbursts against Christianity by two government ministers in Parliament (for which they have not apologized; and which still remain part of the official record of that session) illustrates the religious implication (“These Ministers Should Apologise In Parliament” http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56512342). Similar sentiments about Hinduism or Islam would have evinced a storm of protest! But the Caribbean, and the regional media, remains strangely silent.

It is not now very popular to defend Blacks in Guyana, the majority of whom happen to be Christians, but in a fledgling democracy we have a duty to address racism wherever it rears its ugly head. Christianity is the only religion that does not currently tolerate racism and/or slavery.

We thought that we had comprehensively addressed the issue of covert and overt racism under “Hindu Nationalism” as evidenced in Guyana in our copious submissions to the Ethnic Relations Commission when looking at Kean Gibson’s “Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana”, but the recent spate of hate-mail against the author demands that all citizens should now take another look at her latest book “Sacred Duty: Hinduism and Violence in Guyana”, as I will.

History will vindicate Gibson as one of the great iconoclastic thinker of this generation, and misinformation specialists are falling over themselves trying to confront the ugly truth that her books somehow elicit. Her book “Sacred Duty …” is the latest instalment of her brutally frank expose’ of racism, lawlessness and death in Guyana, and so the attack dogs of the letter-writing brigade are out in force to try to discredit her.

The latest in these adventures into scholastic confusion is Luthchman Gossai (SN 2/22/07: “Dharma teaches that one should obey the laws”), John Da Silva (SN 2/20/07: “Why does Ms. Gibson suggest that this is a Hindu Government?”) and one “R. Williams” (SN 2/22/07: “Caste is almost absent from the consciousness of Indians in Guyana”). These three gentlemen have reduced a remarkable proposition by a fine scholastic mind to an inane semantic symposium.

We have addressed many of their tactics, and inadequacies, before at “The Case for Scholarship in Kean Gibson’s Book” http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/news402/ns4042114.htm. The arguments still hold.

In contrast, the predictable arguments offered by these gentlemen are as remarkable in their inattention to detail as they are in their portent of the real role of a Hindu “presidential advisor” (Shri Prakash Gossai) … to the total exclusion of additional “Muslim” or “Christian” counterparts. The President is hiding his intentions in plain sight, and to the extent that his actions/defences have represented a thesis for “Hindu Nationalism”, it should like (Lutchman)Gossai says be “thrown into the garbage”.

(The latter) Gossai, whom we have met before, accuses Gibson of misinterpreting a “universal standard” for the interpretation of “dharma”, ignoring the fact that in traditional Hindu society with its caste structure, “Dharma” constituted the religious and moral doctrine of the rights and duties of each individual. We have already pointed out the pathological and destructive propensity of Hinduism to differentiate its subjects and objects into racial and social classes, and to relegate to them specific “duties and roles”. This has fuelled a horrible racism in India itself, and led to its partition at one time. To deny this fundamental is to engage in criminal misrepresentation. To encourage the advent or growth of Hindu Nationalism in Guyana or the Caribbean is political irresponsibility.

It gets worse. According to Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane, the word "Dharma" acquired a sense of "the privileges, duties and obligations of a man, his standard of conduct as a member of the Aryan community, as a member of the caste and as a person in a particular state of life." Aryan? Caste? Reminds you of Nazism? This should settle the issue of Gibson’s “knowledge of Sanskrit”. So the question: Who else would the president have given $200 million of the taxpayers’ money … for the sake of “national pride”?

Then “R. Williams” concludes that native Indians are “not worried” about the caste system, oblivious in his recklessness to the plight of three hundred million black-skinned Dalits who represent the apartheid-dilemma of the largest racial minority on the planet. He blissfully cites three of four classes of honorific Dalit appointees, completely disregarding the Human Rights Watch position at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/caste0801-03.htm#P358_71817 and http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india/India994-04.htm#P550_72244. His arguments are almost as ridiculous as Evan Radhay Persaud’s contention to the ERC that Minister Clinton Collymore is Guyana’s best example of a “black Hindu” in Guyana.

“R. Williams’” contention that caste is “almost absent” from Hindu consciousness is misinformation masquerading as scholarship, or else monumental intellectual delusion. Caste is fundamental to Hinduism. Hinduism is meaningless without caste. If there is a “casteless Hinduism” in Guyana (we have been waiting since 2003 for Persaud’s and Kissoon’s “conference papers” on this), then this would be truly revolutionary, since it would not be Hinduism (Ed Vishwanathan maintains that “nothing ever changes” in Hinduism).

To the extent that this is true, Vishal Mangalwadi (a native Indian) makes the point that “Hindu Nationalism” is opposed to democracy. The one spells the death of the other. What advice, then, can Prakash Gossai offer the President that others cannot?

And we don’t need the indiscriminate arming of thousands of ethnic government supporters to make this point (“30,012 Gun Licences”, Guyana Review June 1999", pages 31-32). The Review article has never been rebutted. Requests to the ERC to specify the ethnicity and political affiliation of those persons armed have fallen of deaf ears. The 30,012 weapons may have doubled by now.

Then we have Sir Michael Davies’ treatment of the destruction of democratic institutions like parliament (“Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly”; http://www.parliament.gov.gy/sirdaviesreport.pdf ) and its equally damning sequel (“Addendum to the Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly”; http://www.sdnp.org.gy/parliament/sirdavies_addendum.pdf ).

And that, I believe, is what Gibson is warning us about! We ignore her at our peril!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

16th October 2007

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/403563/Dharma-and-the-Issue-of-Racism-in-Guyana )

Efforts to Rationalize Hindu Nationalist Racism in Guyana and the Caribbean

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter by Mohan Singh (SN 5/28/05 captioned “Where is the evidence of a Hindu conspiracy?”) and would wish to make these few comments. I also refer to the editorial comments that accompanied my letter of 5/27, captioned “Dr. Sieusarran’s racist diatribe should not be compared to Dr. Gibson’s book”.

The intellectual deficiency defined by denial is not, it appears, confined to the editorial staff at Stabroek News. For Mohan Singh, outright and obvious racist diatribe from Sieusarran has somehow degenerated to a discussion on “false accusations” of a Hindu conspiracy. If we can show that Singh’s concoction of “Indian assertion” in the multi-ethnic state is fuelled by nothing less than a culture of denial, a realm of hypocrisy, and a pollution of lies, then what we do indeed have is another validation of Kean Gibson’s “Cycle Of Racial Oppression in Guyana”. I call upon Christians everywhere, regardless of race, to set the record straight in Guyana. If not Christians, then who? Guyana, like Trinidad and the rest of the Caribbean, must not become a convenient dumping ground for Hindu-nationalist racism, or a willing participant to Indian visions of empire. Our future, our destiny, lies in egalitarian democracy.

Mohan Singh misses the point. ”Indian assertion” seems to be inextricably linked with a Hindu-nationalist version of racism. These first five examples of the phenomenon will suffice for now, then we can address other specific examples given by Gibson.

Frederick Kissoon maintains that caste was not transplanted “whole-scale” to Guyana, except in opposition to intermarriage to blacks. Yet the organization Human Rights Watch maintains that opposition to intermarriage is a DEFINING construct of caste. Apart from being in total opposition to everything that is Guyanese and “Caribbean” (the black-dominant Caribbean territories have generally welcomed the Indo-presence, and accommodated intermarriage), this racist assault on children of intermarriage advocated by Sieusarran validates Gibson’s arguments about the dangers of rampant “Indianness” in multi-ethnic societies outside of India. But Mohan Singh and the Editor of Stabroek News would disagree. The culture of denial, the empire of hypocrisy … must be protected at all costs.

Ramesh Gampat works at the United Nations, and in truest Hindutva fashion advises that despite globalization, or Caribbeanness, and Mohan Singh’s sickening lip-service to the reality of being Guyanese in the peculiar mixture of cultures that define our geography, “ethnic identification” will be the most important standard that “Indians” in Guyana and the Caribbean can subscribe to. I personally know of at least three young ladies who were thrown out of their homes because of intermarriage to Blacks. How many do you know? Mohan Singh and the Editor of Stabroek News would disagree. The culture of denial, the empire of hypocrisy … must be protected at all costs.

Dr. Elizabeth Sieusarran's comments bear testimony to the Hindu (Indian) culture of “contamination”, manifest in the motherland in the oppression/marginalization of 160 million black-skinned Dalits in India (see V.T. Rajshekar’s “DALIT: The Black Untouchables of India”), and thereafter manifest here in the Caribbean in her racist and atrocious comments about “ostracizing” the offspring of Indian/Black intermarriage. The editor of Stabroek News and Mohan Singh meets (all the) condemnation of this pronouncement, and the fact that Sieusarran’s position validates much of what Kean Gibson uses in her iconoclastic treatment, with strenuous resistance. The culture of denial, the empire of hypocrisy … must be protected at all costs.

(Guyanese politician) Ravi Dev’s dilemma illustrates the penalty for articulating the thing that must be boiling below the surface of every unrepentant Hindu-nationalist as they are forced to share the same space with other nationalities. His instinct for Gampat’s “Aryan identity” and his proclivity to effusive vitriol cannot stand it, so he articulates very forcefully in 1998 that “Indians” in Guyana have allocated the “Shudra” position to Blacks. For Christians of every race, the point made by economist Clarence Ellis illustrates the first social dilemma that an increased presence of businesses from India will bring under CSME: “The surprising fact is that not a single East Indian leader or leadership group has come out and said that they are willing to share the same space with Black people in terms of equality”. Unless anticipated new Indian investment in the Caribbean under CSME anticipates a flood of subservient labour from India, then serious social and labour problems lie somewhere in our future. After all, the Indian vision of “empire” sees Guyana as the “gateway to Latin America”.

Evan Radhay Persaud, in sworn testimony before the Ethnic Relations Commission, finds himself in a dilemma. He swears that there is no “caste” system in Guyana, and moreso in Hinduism as practiced in Guyana today, and promises to provide “proof” that this is so. Confronted with the fact that “caste” is a defining construct of Hinduism, and that no less a person than Cheddi Jagan gives evidence against him in “The West On Trial”, and that by his own testimony there is only one Black Hindu in Guyana (Clinton Collymore) and so therefore no conversion rate exists, he withdraws quietly. The Ethnic Relations Commission does not hold him to account for the obvious lie under oath … but this is not surprising, since the ERC has become a willing participant to the farce. Mohan Singh, and the editor of Stabroek News, would agree that the culture of denial must inform the empire of hypocrisy at all times. Persaud carries today 5/29/05 some of this bilge to "a conference" in Sieusarran's Trinidad.

Ryhaan Shah illustrates why the culture of “Indian assertion” mooted by Mohan Singh is dangerous for Guyana and the Caribbean. A culture of racism cannot exist alongside a culture of openness and friendship, and must be rejected. Shah opines that this culture of openness and acceptance, and particularly intermarriage, is tantamount to “mashing people down to blackness”. She sees socio-cultural integration and (the Guyana national motto of) “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” as a “racist creed of oneness”. Mohan Singh, and the editor of the Stabroek News, have apparently agreed not to pay any attention to this. The culture of denial must inform the empire of hypocrisy at all times.

We will consider next the hundreds of specific illustrations given by Kean Gibson. A final question: If not for Christians, then what?

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams
29th May 2005

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/403094/Efforts-to-rationalize-Hindu-Nationalist-racism-in-Guyana-and-the-Caribbean )

Christians in Guyana Should Defend Pastor Daniel Singh, and Ask Guyana Chronicle, Kaieteur News To Be Fair

Dear Editor,

An astonishing, though not unexpected, amount of anti-Christian rhetoric is currently being accommodated through the pages of the Guyana Chronicle and Kaieteur News.

It began with Justin Defreitas’ abortive attempt to validate Darwinism through the “Missing-Link” fossil-fraud we now know as “Ida”, this strongly rebutted by one Pastor Daniel Singh. The latest insert in this exchange is found in the Guyana Chronicle of 9th June letter-section under the caption “The Pastor Must Answer the Questions”.

Following the non-publishing by these two newspapers of the comprehensive response to his original attack on Pastor Daniel Singh (see “Ida: Missing Link … or Humongous Hoax” at http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/ida-missing-link-or-humongous-hoax.html ), Justin DeFreitas completely abandons every sense of objectivity on the Ida-fraud issue and mounts a scurrilous personal attack on Singh. It is astonishing that the Chronicle’s new Editor let that one through.

The Pastor is no more obligated publish his “credentials” as is “Peeping Tom”, “Blame the Government” or the myriad of anonymous contributors to the letter-pages in Guyana’s newspapers. Nor has Pastor Singh, I believe, requested Defreitas’ atheistic pedigree, or lack thereof. What is important is that his (Singh’s) arguments on the fraud that Ida represents be rebutted with fastidious attention to the detail of transitional-fossil palaeontology. Semantic skulduggery of the sort that DeFreitas provides is a poor substitute for such academic rigour.

And is it possible that DeFreitas does not know that Guyana has adopted, and been using, the Grade system in schools for some years now?

When the opposing view to DeFreitas’ anti-Christian rhetoric is NOT allowed similar and unbridled access to the media, then the Editors of these newspapers are accommodating a degenerative unprofessionalism, and, in the case of DeFreitas’s latest arguments, rabid intellectual fraud.

Again, we cite below some articles that will give readers perspective on the “Ida” issue, and the hoaxes that fuel efforts to support Darwinian evolution:

The Survival of the Fakest
The dangerous link between science and hype
Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link
Scientists: 'Missing Link' Fossil Not Worth Media Hype
Missing Link Coverage Goes Amiss
Why Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link
Piltdown Man: A Deliberate Hoax
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Finds All Planted
Piltdown Man Forgery


Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
June 9, 2009

Ida: Missing Link ... or Humongous Hoax?

Dear Editor,

I refer to the letter from Justin DeFreitas in the Kaieteur News of June 6, 2009 captioned “The majority’s view can be a violation of natural law”, and Lutchman Gossai's "Fudging the Truth" in the KN of today June 8, and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Many of DeFreitas’ and Gossai's assertions against Pastor Singh are illogical, contrived, and cannot withstand careful analysis.

Pastor Singh will find comfort in the fact that, in the desperate search to salvage the remains of Darwinism, Defreitas’ and Gossai's sarcasm is a poor replacement for the stunning evidence that Darwinism or Darwinian evolution is dead as a scientific concept.

DeFreitas wants Singh to quote “scientists”, so we suggest he read established “pre-Ida” authority about the academic skullduggery that has hitherto informed Darwinian evolution in the article by Dr. Jonathan Wells “The Survival of the Fakest” ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf )

Then we should refer him to the statement “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf ), where hundreds of scientists have now politely disassociated themselves from Darwinism. While there has been nary a rebuttal of Wells’ 2001-report “The Survival of the Fakest”, this wholesale defection of 761 members of the scientific community in the 2008-update of the Discovery Institute’s “Scientific Dissent” statement has ensured that a desperate, even farcical, effort had to be launched to provide a rebuttal. Ida seems to be the designated scapegoat.

To get a sense of the desperation that drove this new “scientific effort” after Dr. Wells published his book “Icons of Evolution” (which illustrated that almost EVERY pillar of evolutionary science was standing on nothing else than hot air and criminal mischief) we should quote Dr. Wells in “Survival of the Fakest”:

“… As it happens, all of these examples, as well as many others purportedly standing as evidence of evolution, turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massive distortions and even some faked evidence. Nor are we only talking about high-school textbooks that some might excuse (but shouldn’t) for adhering to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of the most prestigious and widely used college texts, such as Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the graduate-level textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” is taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible….”

Small wonder, then, that Science writer Brian Switek makes the following astonishing connection in the article “The Dangerous Link Between Science and Hype :

“… But what about the scientists who described Ida? Are they victims of the media machine? Some, such as the University of Michigan palaeontologist Philip Gingerich, have confided their discomfort with being rushed in their research by Atlantic Productions, but his co-author, Jørn Hurum, from the University of Oslo , has been enjoying the limelight. In interview after interview he has asserted that Ida truly is our ancestor and that her picture will be in every science textbook for the next 100 years….”

In summary, therefore, Pastor Singh’s skepticism is validated by the mounting suspicions of the sort in the Op-ed “Is Ida significant?“ (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2009/may/Hype-Over--Missing-Link--Fossil-Ida-Draws-Skeptics.html )

“… In Science magazine, paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons of Duke University is quoted as saying, “It's an extraordinarily complete, wonderful specimen, but it's not telling us too much that we didn't know before.”

Science’s Ann Gibbons adds that other paleontologists are skeptical because “Hurum and [colleague Phillip] Gingerich's analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits” and include comparisons to “anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia .”

Mark Henderson, the science editor of The Times of London, says in his analysis that there is simply “no such thing as the missing link” because “there is no fossil that can fully explain an evolutionary transition all on its own.”

Science writer Carl Zimmer berated the media coverage of Ida’s public debut. When the story was first gaining momentum in the press, Zimmer said in his Discover magazine blog The Loom that he waited for “experts who were not involved in the discovery and analysis of the fossil” to “corroborate that this was indeed the Holy Grail of paleontology. … I never found one….”

We will watch Ida's rise ... and demise ... without holding our breath. It’s small wonder that coverage has all but disappeared from the media in a hurry after Sir Attenborough’s media debacle.

Then, completely lost in a fog of intellectual mischief, DeFreitas offers a treatment on gay rights and gay marriage that is an affront to Blacks and the civil-rights movement everywhere. Suffice it to say that we have dealt with many of the issues he has raised in the article “Arguments Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.esnips.com/doc/39fabae8-ea47-4c46-bc26-d0ac00d6d1ab/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ).

Thereafter, we should end all of his (DeFreitas’) arguments with a quotation from that script from lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland , Oregon 97266 ). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89):

“…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 ….”

Gay militancy ... and its horrible hoax as outlined by DeFreitas ... fail on these criteria! The real tragedy may well be that PANCAP … and the DeFreitas’ of this world … never alert constituents to the public policy implications that their opinions would have.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
June 5, 2009

PS:

Some material persons should read as we confront the media hype regarding “Ida” (she’s about the size of a cat):

The Survival of the Fakest
The dangerous link between science and hype
Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link
Scientists: 'Missing Link' Fossil Not Worth Media Hype
Piltdown Finds All Planted
Piltdown Man Forgery
The Survival of the Fakest
Missing Link Coverage Goes AmissWhy Ida Fossil is Not the Missing Link

Why Isn't Kaieteur News Printing Rebuttals to Stella Ramsaroop Regarding Her Support for Gay Militancy In Guyana?

Context:

It has come to my attention that the newspapers in Guyana never published any of numerous responses sent to them in June of 2006 regarding an article “Roger Williams: Homosexuals are just as human as you and me!” by Stella Ramsaroop.

The fact that many of these responses were ignored is troubling, particularly since some were communicated to Ms. Ramsaroop herself with a challenge that she encourage Kaieteur News, in particular, to print same to show that they were capable of being “fair”.

The following is a rework of one such submission (sent previously on the 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th of June 2006, but as yet unpublished by Kaieteur News, or acknowledged by Ms. Ramsaroop at her guyanagroove website), and a challenge is again issued that she encourages fairness in the debate process rather than hide behind the editorial/ownership policy at Kaieteur News. Copies of the previous e-mails complete with their circulation lists, are available by writing RogerWilli@Yahoo.com.


Dear Editor,

I refer to the “Stella Says” column in Guyana’s Kaieteur News of Sunday 4th June 2006, and offer this response.

This is the third attempt to have a rebuttal published (14/6/06), so we may well be witnessing a new and deliberate attempt by the media to be complicit with gay militancy in Guyana.

Kaieteur News has published several gay-militant-supporting submissions under the guise of “fairness” but has neglected to require any academic or intellectual rigor of these persons, merely using as its defence an infatuation with “discrimination”. In the process, they are accommodating the breaking of several local laws, including Chapter 21:02 (Cinematographic & Video Act) and the Criminal Law Offences Act, Chapters 8:01 and 8:02.

A copy has been sent as an open letter to the owners of Kaieteur News and Stabroek News, and the Managing editor of the government-owned Guyana Chronicle. This letter is also copied to as many sections of the Caribbean media as possible, given the importance of circulating the legal, medical, moral and intellectual basis against homosexuality and gay-militancy in Caribbean states.

In that regard, many current law reviews are cited below.

The entire column by Stella Ramsaroop, and supporting arguments by Paul Ramsaroop in the same newspaper, can be summed up in four fatal inaccuracies and misconceptions.

Firstly, she advocates that to be fair on the issue of gay militancy, Christians should/must also “boycott businesses that accommodate those who are cheaters, wrongdoers, sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers”. This is not the robust intellectual challenge she intends it to be, and the response of the Christian community should be this simple: WE WILL DO SO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEIR REPRESENTATIVE “ASSOCIATIONS” REQUIRE KAIETEUR NEWS TO PUBLISH PRESS RELEASES THAT THEY WILL BE HOLDING EXHIBITIONS, FILM FESTIVALS AND RADIO PROGRAMMES “CELEBRATING” THEIR CRAFT.

Their reluctance to do the above will illustrate one inescapable fact, that it is utter nonsense to challenge moral or criminal law … simply by breaking the moral or criminal law. It is equally nonsensical to infer that Christians have not adopted a position on each or any of these vices in the historical past.

This is no less that what Ms. Ramsaroop is now advocating, and the rationale is trite, flippant, and devoid of intellectual merit. She might therefore find comfort in requesting the Society of Murderers, or the Society of Rapists and Molesters, to request KN to handle their Press Releases for their exhibitions and film festivals. After all, they are human beings too, and (sic) no further rationale, analysis or logic is needed to defend their actions.

Secondly, Ms. Ramsaroop advocates that SASOD is not trying to recruit more people to their way of life, but really orchestrating a “celebration”.

What, exactly, does gay militancy represented by Vidyaratha Kissoon and SASOD in Guyana, have to celebrate? She offers no suggestions, and obviously needs help. To accommodate this we must proceed to established authority. First, are they going to celebrate the fact that the Centers for Disease Control establishes that after 25 years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, MSMs (bisexual and homosexual) still represent that most accommodating vehicle for the spread of HIV. What are the facts for Guyana?. She should refer to the website http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international) for more detail, or else peruse the copy of the table for 2002 (on page 5 of the report at http://www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf).

The CDC figures for Guyana infer 60% “under-reporting”. There has never been a CDC-sponsored/executed seroprevalence study on men in Guyana (see http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no3/01-0261.htm, dated 1/30/2004, and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9220699&dopt=Abstract).

If that is not enough, Ms. Ramsaroop should take the step that the Christian community did years ago, and educate herself on the secular arguments beside 1 Corinthians 6:7-10 that are firmly consistent with the Biblical position on gay militancy and homosexual activity. In this case we should first turn to three of five established law reviews:

“Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002).
(http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.PDF)

“Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, by Steve Baldwin. 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 267 (2002),
(http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF)

“Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman. 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002
(http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.PDF)

Paul Rondeau above illustrates how the media is frequently complicit in aiding the gay-militant agenda, and Ms. Ramsaroop’s column illustrates what perils accompany a lack of meaningful research. Steve Baldwin illustrates inter alia that the homosexual community molest children at a rate vastly higher that heterosexuals, and Judith Reisman (who destroyed Alfred Kinsey’s theories on sexuality) illustrates the intellectual trap that SASOD and Kissoon are leading (have led?) Ms. Ramsaroop into.

This is why we should depart from a meaningless exchange of opinion, and focus on the evidence available.

Thirdly, Ms. Ramsaroop maintains that “these events also allow others to see that those in the homosexual community are not aliens with antennas coming out of their heads; they are normal human beings with human emotions just like you and me”. This is the first point in the column that makes any sense, because it is the truth. But as usual she completely misinterprets the intellectual premise being addressed. It is not the “humanity” of homosexuals that is under discussion here, but the efforts of SASOD and Vidyaratha Kissoon to deliberately hide an agenda by lying, and worse, lying to the very people that need treatment, and the truth, to recover from homosexual entrapment. Further rationalization of this issue would be best left to the two other law reviews, namely:

“Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”. By Ty Clevenger. 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002)
(http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2clevenger.PDF)

“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/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.PDF)

Finally, and fourthly, Stella departs from her own advice on the intent of inclusiveness in I Corinthians 6:7-10 and now makes the astonishing comment that it is only the “child molesters” the “thieving criminals” and the “swindling politicians” who are dragging Guyana 's morality "into a cesspool of grime”.

Ms. Ramsaroop’s exhibits in that statement a disturbing level of deception and intellectual convenience. If not that, then it is delusion, because we must now reveal that disease and child molestation defines the death-style that SASOD is sworn to protect, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, she seems to wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhea, gonorrhea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites (in addition to the incidence of HIV) in Guyana.

What are the facts for Guyana? The Guyana Police (in turning a blind eye), the management at the National Communication Network (in accommodating a radio programme) and the Librarian at the National Library need to let us know, since they claim to be doing the public a service in accommodating the message of gay militancy.

For the final word, enter Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series (partially cited above):

“.... 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...."

This point needs repeating: Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong! … and gay militants like Vidyaratha Kissoon and SASOD are perpetuating that wrong.

Ms. Stella Ramsaroop should take note, and Proverbs 23:23 should be helpful in that endeavour.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

June 5, 2009

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/319228/Why-Isnt-Kaieteur-News-Printing-Rebuttals-to-Stella-Ramsaroop-Regarding-Her-Support-for-Gay-Militancy-in-Guyana )

Former Guyana Chief Justice Massiah Has It All Wrong On The Corporal Punishment Issue

Dear Editor,

I have read the treatment by Keith Massiah, S.C. (SN 7/01/07: “The Convention has by operation of law effectively abolished corporal punishment in schools”) and must now offer my considered rebuttal. That editorial caption to that letter is unfortunate, and, the narrow technical focus and conclusion in Massiah’s opinion is very troubling, especially since Massiah apparently ignores the fact that the original framers of the CRC never alluded to "corporal punishment" at all. Before lamenting the “possible benefits” that the Convention “may” provide, Massiah may well consider that it is the CRC itself that should be assessed for its “jurisprudential content, its purpose and range”. That the NCRC has got away with unchallenged advocacy thus far is more of a testament to the inactivity of some social institutions in Guyana than to anything novel or innovative offered by the CRC. I submit that there is a wilful ignorance of the attendant issues, or the far-reaching consequences, of the NCRC mandate.

Guyana’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of The Child is not under doubt, but surely our interpretations of specific aspects of the convention are. It would be an act of folly for parliamentarians not to now scrutinize the detail of the CRC and its operation elsewhere. Parliament may not be “supreme” in one sense, but our parliamentarians can and should wield the decisive unifying force necessary to dismantle any constitutional structures that support or threaten anarchy. We owe it to the government and people of Guyana, as well as the church (because of its anti-Bible implications), to ask this question: What, exactly, are Guyana 's "legal" obligations?

First, we should lament the casualness with which Massiah currently, and Smith, Ramjattan and Trotman earlier, seem to insist that Guyana conceded sovereignty in any way by acceding to the CRC. Parliament should be applauded on its caution and restraint thus far, and should remember 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".

We are therefore reminded by Patrick Fagan, ad nauseam, 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) ...." We should be thereby warned, and parliamentarians should consider Fagan's article "How the UN Conventions on Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion and Soverignity" ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm) as required reading.

Secondly, and as an illustration of Fagan's concern above, this would lead logically to another most significant observation. We would ask after Lionel Persaud in his viewpoint of June 2004: "Where are the words "corporal punishment" mentioned in the Convention?” It may be eye-opening to Mr. Massiah that the Convention does not mention the term “corporal punishment” at all. Chantalle Smith, and the National Commission on the Rights of the Child (NCRC), is guilty of misrepresentation in implying that Guyana must consider the specific idea of “corporal punishment” as falling within the perspective, framework and intention of the original framers and signatories of the convention. The excessive latitude taken by the CRC in interpreting its mandate has been a source of concern in many countries.

This is indeed a significant issue worthy of Mr. Massiah’s attention; since 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”. Is the AFC, and Massiah, illustrating that they are totally unaware of Guyana ’s proud academic and educational heritage ... and how that came about in an athmosphere of caring but firm discipline? Withdrawing CP from a range of disciplinary measures serves no useful purpose!

Thirdly, consistent with Dr. Mark Hartwig’s diagnosis of an assault on soverignity and the granting of undue influence to special interests (“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), at least five NGO’s closely associated with the NCRC (do they have “consultative status with the NCRC” per Hartwig?) are now seeking to usurp the Ministry of Education’s outlook and legal authority on the issue of CP, and bully the rest of us Guyanese on this sensitive issue. We may have here a textbook illustration of his argument. The article brings an excellent perspective to the discussion. Dr Hartwig offers 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.

These are objective criteria that Mr. Massiah can use in assessing CP and any other issues the CRC raises. Perhaps we can now begin to focus on the 'real' issues. If the CRC will not address the technical evidence for the retention of CP, then this effort at objectivity firstly means a generous debate in considering if Dr Hartwig was right or not. I cannot envisage the possibility of any Guyanese politician or legal luminary deferring to the CRC on any of the above five points. It takes only a two-thirds majority in Parliament to effect constitutional change, putting effective shackles on the scale and impact of CRC ambitions in our beloved country. This unity is achievable.

Or else we must move to referendum!

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

July 5, 2007

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/282103/Former-Guyana-Chief-Justice-Massiah-Has-It-All-Wrong-on-the-Corporal-Punishment-Issue )

10 Defences for Anil Azeez Against Aksharananda's Accusations

Dear Editor,

Aksharananda (Stabroek News 8/24/07) returns to the Anil Azeez “song” debate, even guiltier than before of fathomless hypocrisy. Firstly, he again hacks a swathe of accusation against Christianity, his arguments illustrating a disturbing level of historical naiveté and misinformation. Paragraph 6 denies the contemporary and factual problem that Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/globalcaste/caste0801-03.htm#P358_71817) has with Hinduism as culture/religion.

Swami asks the question: “At a minimum, why shouldn't these faiths be challenged or at least be brought within the purview of rational discourse?” Apparently, such “challenges” should exclude the horrors of Hinduism/Hindu Nationalism and the pathological propensity of that faith to assign its subjects and objects into racial/social classes, and degrade dissenters (see “The Rig Veda does refer to caste”; http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56525203 and the book “Apartheid in India” by V.T. Rajshekar).

Thirdly, we can appreciate the depth of Aksharananda’s duplicity by contemplating the IRO meeting of June 2005 on “How to propagate faith without offence”. There, many non-Christians advocated censorship. Among the objective criteria decided on were: (a) Respect for the truth, (b) Respect for freedom of speech; (c) Respect for egalitarian democracy; (d) Non-preferential treatment, and no victimization, for persons of differing religious persuasions relative to issues of procedure, protocol and law, and; (e) Respect for the rule of law and constitutional provisions regarding freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. How significant is this, and especially relative to “truth”? The principle cited was: I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it! Mangalwadi chooses to express his deliverance from Hinduism this way: “Empires that have lost credibility and the moral right to exist can continue to exist like buildings with poor foundations or trees with rotten roots. They collapse only when a tremor or a flood hits them. Likewise, untrue ideologies tend to continue until truth liberates their victims.” Dr. Joseph D'Souza ("Historical Indian Elections 2004 and the hand of God!"; http://www.aiccindia.org/news/election.htm) concurs.

Fourthly, therefore, Anil Azeez’s own choice of words pales in comparison to those of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Architect of the Indian Constitution. Ambedkar, a Hindu, would consider Azeez’s words a confirmation of his own in the online book “What Congress and Gandhi have done to Untouchables”: “Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated; blasted and blighted the lives of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism." Azeez is no guiltier than Ambedkar, whose words indict a culture which is still propagated by Aksharananda’s RSS, a group of intellectual terrorists who guard their mission (see “The Foreign Exchange of Hate”; http://www.stopfundinghate.org/sacw/) with “evangelical zeal”. The Christian rationale for Azeez’s fervent declaration is found at Colossians 3:8-11. Nothing ever changes in Hinduism, so to the extent that his reference to “krishna” represents spiritual, historical and de-facto truth, then to condemn him is hypocritical.

Fifthly, if as Aksharananda suggests “Verbal and physical violence are inseparable” then in Hinduism we have the world’s deadliest religion, because its words define a structure aimed at oppressing 300 million Dalits. Where there is a respect for the truth, we are all safe! You cannot “ban” what is “true” to protect your own untruth!

The principle that drives egalitarian parliamentary democracy is: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This is the only context in which Anil Azeez’s passionate declaration about the freedom that exists in Jesus can and must be understood. Everything Aksharananda does tells us that his mission is to suppress this freedom, not encourage it!

So, seventhly, in paragraph 1 of Aksharananda’s letter of 8/24/07 he refers to a Muslim tract that made an equally compelling statement about the incapacity of Hinduism to reflect the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Guyanese. This was a statement of fact, entirely within the rights of an Islamic worldview. Any other interpretation advanced the cause of fascism and totalitarianism. The claim thereafter became open to debate and discussion, not censorship. Thereafter, the Indian national motto “Satyameva Jayate” (Truth Alone Triumphs) would prevail.

Aksharananda, by paragraph 2, accuses Azeez of initiating a “cross-cultural” war! This is the naïve and fatalistic eschatology and rationale we would expect of second- or third-formers at high school. Debate and disagreement through scholarship are precluded, and discouraged, by this irresponsible declaration. Aksharananda’s appeal in the sixth paragraph that “At a minimum, why shouldn't these faiths be challenged or at least be brought within the purview of rational discourse?” is now seen to be the farce that is always was. It was the same feeling of disgust that converged when Aksharananda, wearing his RSS-hat and defending Hindutva ritual purity, proudly declared: “Indian men forged unions with Black women, not marriages”. This didn’t generate a “cross-cultural” war! Should it have?

Ninthly, by paragraph 5, Akaharananda advocates after Stark: “Religious intolerance is inherent in all monotheisms". This is obviously meant to defend the pantheistic ambivalence of Hindu theology, and its compulsive shape-shifting in the absence of absolutes of the “Thou shalt not” type. Ed Vishwanathan is clear that nothing ever changes in Hinduism. On the face of it, then, Swami has something. Then reality kicks in. Above, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had referred to this interminable ambiguity as a “chamber of horrors”, and Hindu India leads the world in anti-Christian incidents this year alone. Consider the case of Pastor Walter Masih as he was beaten by Hindu youths in front of his seven-year old daughter in May of 2007 (“Indian Christians targeted in violent attacks”; http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/164851.aspx). A video of that tragic event is also available at that site. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian “monotheistic” ethic supports democracy, participation, free speech, scholarship and rational discourse as natural rights accruing to each citizen.

Paragraph 9 climaxes Aksharananda’s attempt to insult the intelligence of Guyanese: “Surmounting my inhibitions and ambivalences, I still maintain that (that) singer has every right to his faith and its propagation” This is an incredible admission, consistent with Hindu Nationalist ambivalence, because it finally concedes that Azeez has rights. The right to free speech. The right to make reasonable statements that illustrate his deliverance. The right not to deny Jesus. The right not to be bullied into submission by Aksharananda. The right to make Swami Aksharananda aware that this same freedom is available in Jesus to break the chains that bind his mind. Exercising those rights must not be confused with “vilification”, firstly because truth informs them, and secondly because egalitarian democracy protects their dutiful and diligent exercise.

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

1/9/07

(Formerly located at http://www.scribd.com/doc/272612/10-Defences-for-Anil-Azeez-Against-Aksharanandas-Accusations )