In January of 2001, Guyana's Parliament voted to include sexual orientation as one of the non-discriminatory clauses in the Constitution of Guyana. These series of notes were kept at Queer Law website
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Sexual orientation bill going back to Parliament
By Patrick Denny
The bill banning discrimination against persons
based on their sexual orientation is to be sent back to
Parliament for review following the maelstrom over whether
it would in effect legalise homosexual relations.
Unanimously passed by the National Assembly earlier
this month, it has not yet been assented to by the President
and is therefore not law.
Representatives of religious groups and three parliamentary
parties who met at the Office of the President yesterday agreed
that the Constitution (Amendment) (No.5) Bill should be sent
back to the National Assembly for its reconsideration.
The move to return the bill is almost without precedent and,
according to a knowledgeable source, there is no precedent for
dealing with a bill which is returned by the President and is
subsequently amended.
In returning the bill to the Speaker of the National
Assembly, according to the Constitution, President Jagdeo
would have to indicate his reasons for so doing. If it is not
amended and is returned unaltered after a two-thirds vote by the
Assembly, President Jagdeo is required to assent to it within 21
days unless he dissolves the Assembly earlier.
The legislation, among other things enshrines as a
fundamental right a person's right not to be discriminated against
on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. It was approved by the
National Assembly by a 55-0 vote on January 4, and was based
on recommendations from the Constitution Reform Commission
(CRC). The Christian, Hindu and Islamic communities were
represented on the CRC. Their representatives were Rev Keith
Haley and attorneys-at-law Vidyanand Persaud and Shahabudeen
McDoom respectively.
Sections of the religious community have over the past two
weeks been waging a rearguard battle to have the sexual
orientation ground removed from the fundamental rights section of
the amended Constitution. It fears that the bill would have
far-reaching effects including the legalisation of
"same-sex marriages" and the admission of homosexuals in the
army.
Answering questions from reporters after the meeting,
Guyana Council of Churches (GCC) chairman, Bishop Juan
Edgehill said that while the GCC was supportive of the
amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, it did not want the ban to be enshrined in the
Constitution as a fundamental right.
The meeting was called by President Jagdeo to have the
issue discussed so as to agree on a way forward in addressing
the concerns of the churches.
The representatives of the church had previously met
President Jagdeo and he had assured them that he would not
assent to the bill so that they could have an opportunity to lobby
the parliamentary parties.
President Jagdeo told reporters after the meeting that
recommitting the bill would give the parties an opportunity to
revisit it to see if the concerns expressed could be addressed.
He said too that he was anxious to get the other sections
of the legislation enacted such as the provisions dealing with
gender equity and the right to education and to work.
President Jagdeo said that he had advised the representatives
of the religious community to lobby the PNC for its support for the
process that the meeting decided should be adopted.
Bishop Edgehill, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said
that he had welcomed the opportunity to discuss the issue with the
representatives of the parliamentary parties -- the PPP/Civic, The
United Force (TUF) and the Alliance for Guyana (AFG). He said
that the discussion on the issue had been cordial, useful and
spirited and that the GCC representatives would be contacting the
PNC Reform to get its support for the procedure for reconsidering
the bill.
He disagreed with the suggestion that the church leaders
had the opportunity to study the bill before it was approved by the
NationalAssembly. It was sanctioned by the Joint Management
Committee on which the PPP/Civic and the PNC are represented.
Fazeel Ferouz a representative of the Moslem community
said that he had been thankful for the opportunity to discuss the
way forward. He said that the amendment in question was
disturbing to his community and the society at large and that his
organisation would be working with the parties to get the
amendment changed to its satisfaction.
Chandra Gajraj, who represented the Hindu community at
the meeting said that she was not convinced that the amendment,
which she supported, would legalise homosexuality.
Responding to questions about the position of the Catholic
Churchwhich supported the amendment, Bishop Edgehill said
that the pastoral letter to the Catholic faithful said that the bill had
offered an opportunity for the church to exercise compassion.
However, he asserted that the position being advocated by the
GCC was not a campaign of hate against homosexuals, whom he
said the church welcomes with open arms.
Recommittal of the bill, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine who
represented the AFG at the meeting said, would allow for
generating the widest possible support for the fundamental rights
section of the Constitution.
Aubrey Collins, who represented TUF and was also a
member of the CRC, said that the party was thankful to the
religious community for highlighting the possible far-reaching
effects of the amendment.
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Letter: Christians cannot support discrimination based on sexual
orientation
I read an advertisement in your Sunday issue on the recent
amendment to the constitution to prevent discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and feel that while the content has some merit
from a Christian perspective, it does not address the intent of the Act.
The issue addressed by the Act is that of discrimination and it
has attempted to be legally specific, thus including discrimination
based on one's sexual orientation. Surely a Christian cannot support
discrimination against a person because of his/her sexual orientation.
Further, such a position against discrimination does not imply
any support for homosexuality.
In fact, the churches should be glad that such legislation has
been introduced especially when we consider that many offenders
in this area of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation claim
to be Christians, who believe that we are all made in the image and
likeness of God. Surely God did not make any exceptions in his
creation of the human species, which would allow us scope for
discrimination!
We must remember that apartheid was founded on precisely
this sort of discrimination, except that the base was colour of skin
rather than sexual orientation.
Finally, we Christians must cultivate the virtue of tolerance
since it will allow us opportunities to sincerely reach out to all our
brothers and sisters even those who may hold radically different
moral positions from our own.
- Yours faithfully, Fr Malcolm Rodrigues SJ
Letter: There was no response earlier on the constitutional
amendment on homosexuality
I refer to my letter captioned "Is homosexuality a crime"
(5.ll.2000) bringing attention to the fact that New International
Magazine had published an article stating that homosexuality in
Guyana was punishable by either death or life in prison. While
acknowledging that there was a maximum penalty for buggery of
life imprisonment, not death, you indicated in the editor's note that
proposed reforms to the Constitution currently underway would
radically change the existing laws. Your note to the best of my
recollection, provoked no response. However, that was a deceptive
calm and the storm has broken.
As the lobbying by religious church leaders and religious
political leaders gets underway, I'd like to lobby the 55-0 members
of the National Assembly (especially the Parliamentary Affairs
Minister, Reepu Daman Persaud) who approved this progressive
piece of legislation on behalf of people who'd like to live their lives
without fear of ignorance.
I remind the members to bear in mind while being lobbied that
religious leaders of one orientation or another, at one time or another,
also strenuously battled against the abolition of slavery and
apartheid, employment equity for Dalits and the abolition of laws that
valued the legal testimony of women at half of that of a man's.
Furthermore, what is very curious in this debate is the absence of
any mention of female homosexuality. Could this be because
heterosexually dominated society has other ways of dealing with
'out of control' female sexuality, for example, by the cutlass? As if
under some sort of threat, the focus of the homophobes is on having
a law that protects against 'buggery', 'anal intercourse' and
'homosexual acts between men'. Protect whom? And why the
double-speak?
This debate is not about homosexuality at all; it is about
maintaining the damnable fantasies of powerful heterosexual men
in Guyana at the expense of the powerless.
- Yours faithfully, Anil Persaud, British Columbia
Editor's note:
We repeat the editor's note [referred to] in the previous letter.
"Sections 35l, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act
provide as follows:
35l. "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a
party to the commission, by any male person, of any act of gross
indecency with any other male person shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and liable to imprisonment for two years.
352. Everyone who: (a) attempts to commit buggery:; or (b) assaults
any person with intent to commit buggery; or (c) being a male,
indecently assaults any other male person, shall be guilty of felony
and liable to imprisonment for ten years.
353. Everyone who commits buggery, with a human being or with any
other living creature, shall be guilty of felony and liable to imprisonment
for life".
Thus buggery of a male or female of "any other living creature"
attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Actual sentences
have been much lower.
We are not aware of any prosecutions for private homosexual activity.
The new constitution will make discrimination on the basis of
sexual preference unlawful. This could lead to some changes in the
law".
Letter: Representatives of religions on Constitution Reform
Commission did not object to amendment on sexual orientation
(January 25, 2001)
I have noted with interest the storm that is brewing over the
anti-discrimination provision in the reform constitution in relation to
sexual orientation.
Is it not the case that the commissioners represented by the
three major religions in Guyana all gave their assent to the
recommendation when it was tabled at the Constitution Reform
Commission?
If my memory serves me correctly, there was one dissenting
voice, and it was not the voice of Rev Keith Halley, representative
from the Christian religion, nor Mr Vidyanand Persaud, representative
from the Hindu religion, nor Mr Shahabuddin McDoom, representative
from the Muslim religion.
- Yours faithfully, Cavelle A Lynch, Attorney-at-Law, Former Supervisor,
Research and Analysis, Constitution Reform Commission
Letter: Organised religion has historically oppressed many groups
I was having my breakfast this morning -- bakes, salted fish and
freshly brewed coffee -- as I read the Toronto Star newspaper, a daily
pastime of mine. However, this morning my attention was immediately
arrested upon turning to the World page where in a small column
headlined "Guyana" I read that "Christian leaders have called for three
days of fasting and prayer to press President Jagdeo not to sign a gay
rights amendment to the constitution".
As a labour, community, human rights activist, I would suggest,
very respectfully, that these so-called Christian leaders, instead of
fasting and praying to deny fundamental rights -- indeed inalienable
rights -- to gays ought to be fasting, praying and providing for the many
poor, dispossessed, homeless and hopeless people and children I
observed roaming the streets of Guyana on my recent visit.
We must never forget that organized religion -- without
exception -- has historically used the bible and other religious books
to oppress groups of people. However, the level of hypocrisy on this
issue is truly obscene for so many "Christian" leaders while publicly
voicing moral outrage privately engage in the very behaviour they
condemn.
The fifty-five members who voted for the bill should be
commended and I hope that the President moves forward to amend
the constitution to protect the rights of all Guyanese.
- Yours faithfully, June Veecock
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Notes from the January 2001 debate
In January of 2001, Guyana's Parliament voted to include sexual orientation as one of the non-discriminatory clauses in the Constitution of Guyana. These series of notes were kept at Queer Law website
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Sexual orientation bill going back to Parliament
By Patrick Denny
The bill banning discrimination against persons
based on their sexual orientation is to be sent back to
Parliament for review following the maelstrom over whether
it would in effect legalise homosexual relations.
Unanimously passed by the National Assembly earlier
this month, it has not yet been assented to by the President
and is therefore not law.
Representatives of religious groups and three parliamentary
parties who met at the Office of the President yesterday agreed
that the Constitution (Amendment) (No.5) Bill should be sent
back to the National Assembly for its reconsideration.
The move to return the bill is almost without precedent and,
according to a knowledgeable source, there is no precedent for
dealing with a bill which is returned by the President and is
subsequently amended.
In returning the bill to the Speaker of the National
Assembly, according to the Constitution, President Jagdeo
would have to indicate his reasons for so doing. If it is not
amended and is returned unaltered after a two-thirds vote by the
Assembly, President Jagdeo is required to assent to it within 21
days unless he dissolves the Assembly earlier.
The legislation, among other things enshrines as a
fundamental right a person's right not to be discriminated against
on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. It was approved by the
National Assembly by a 55-0 vote on January 4, and was based
on recommendations from the Constitution Reform Commission
(CRC). The Christian, Hindu and Islamic communities were
represented on the CRC. Their representatives were Rev Keith
Haley and attorneys-at-law Vidyanand Persaud and Shahabudeen
McDoom respectively.
Sections of the religious community have over the past two
weeks been waging a rearguard battle to have the sexual
orientation ground removed from the fundamental rights section of
the amended Constitution. It fears that the bill would have
far-reaching effects including the legalisation of
"same-sex marriages" and the admission of homosexuals in the
army.
Answering questions from reporters after the meeting,
Guyana Council of Churches (GCC) chairman, Bishop Juan
Edgehill said that while the GCC was supportive of the
amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, it did not want the ban to be enshrined in the
Constitution as a fundamental right.
The meeting was called by President Jagdeo to have the
issue discussed so as to agree on a way forward in addressing
the concerns of the churches.
The representatives of the church had previously met
President Jagdeo and he had assured them that he would not
assent to the bill so that they could have an opportunity to lobby
the parliamentary parties.
President Jagdeo told reporters after the meeting that
recommitting the bill would give the parties an opportunity to
revisit it to see if the concerns expressed could be addressed.
He said too that he was anxious to get the other sections
of the legislation enacted such as the provisions dealing with
gender equity and the right to education and to work.
President Jagdeo said that he had advised the representatives
of the religious community to lobby the PNC for its support for the
process that the meeting decided should be adopted.
Bishop Edgehill, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said
that he had welcomed the opportunity to discuss the issue with the
representatives of the parliamentary parties -- the PPP/Civic, The
United Force (TUF) and the Alliance for Guyana (AFG). He said
that the discussion on the issue had been cordial, useful and
spirited and that the GCC representatives would be contacting the
PNC Reform to get its support for the procedure for reconsidering
the bill.
He disagreed with the suggestion that the church leaders
had the opportunity to study the bill before it was approved by the
NationalAssembly. It was sanctioned by the Joint Management
Committee on which the PPP/Civic and the PNC are represented.
Fazeel Ferouz a representative of the Moslem community
said that he had been thankful for the opportunity to discuss the
way forward. He said that the amendment in question was
disturbing to his community and the society at large and that his
organisation would be working with the parties to get the
amendment changed to its satisfaction.
Chandra Gajraj, who represented the Hindu community at
the meeting said that she was not convinced that the amendment,
which she supported, would legalise homosexuality.
Responding to questions about the position of the Catholic
Churchwhich supported the amendment, Bishop Edgehill said
that the pastoral letter to the Catholic faithful said that the bill had
offered an opportunity for the church to exercise compassion.
However, he asserted that the position being advocated by the
GCC was not a campaign of hate against homosexuals, whom he
said the church welcomes with open arms.
Recommittal of the bill, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine who
represented the AFG at the meeting said, would allow for
generating the widest possible support for the fundamental rights
section of the Constitution.
Aubrey Collins, who represented TUF and was also a
member of the CRC, said that the party was thankful to the
religious community for highlighting the possible far-reaching
effects of the amendment.
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Letter: Christians cannot support discrimination based on sexual
orientation
I read an advertisement in your Sunday issue on the recent
amendment to the constitution to prevent discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and feel that while the content has some merit
from a Christian perspective, it does not address the intent of the Act.
The issue addressed by the Act is that of discrimination and it
has attempted to be legally specific, thus including discrimination
based on one's sexual orientation. Surely a Christian cannot support
discrimination against a person because of his/her sexual orientation.
Further, such a position against discrimination does not imply
any support for homosexuality.
In fact, the churches should be glad that such legislation has
been introduced especially when we consider that many offenders
in this area of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation claim
to be Christians, who believe that we are all made in the image and
likeness of God. Surely God did not make any exceptions in his
creation of the human species, which would allow us scope for
discrimination!
We must remember that apartheid was founded on precisely
this sort of discrimination, except that the base was colour of skin
rather than sexual orientation.
Finally, we Christians must cultivate the virtue of tolerance
since it will allow us opportunities to sincerely reach out to all our
brothers and sisters even those who may hold radically different
moral positions from our own.
- Yours faithfully, Fr Malcolm Rodrigues SJ
Letter: There was no response earlier on the constitutional
amendment on homosexuality
I refer to my letter captioned "Is homosexuality a crime"
(5.ll.2000) bringing attention to the fact that New International
Magazine had published an article stating that homosexuality in
Guyana was punishable by either death or life in prison. While
acknowledging that there was a maximum penalty for buggery of
life imprisonment, not death, you indicated in the editor's note that
proposed reforms to the Constitution currently underway would
radically change the existing laws. Your note to the best of my
recollection, provoked no response. However, that was a deceptive
calm and the storm has broken.
As the lobbying by religious church leaders and religious
political leaders gets underway, I'd like to lobby the 55-0 members
of the National Assembly (especially the Parliamentary Affairs
Minister, Reepu Daman Persaud) who approved this progressive
piece of legislation on behalf of people who'd like to live their lives
without fear of ignorance.
I remind the members to bear in mind while being lobbied that
religious leaders of one orientation or another, at one time or another,
also strenuously battled against the abolition of slavery and
apartheid, employment equity for Dalits and the abolition of laws that
valued the legal testimony of women at half of that of a man's.
Furthermore, what is very curious in this debate is the absence of
any mention of female homosexuality. Could this be because
heterosexually dominated society has other ways of dealing with
'out of control' female sexuality, for example, by the cutlass? As if
under some sort of threat, the focus of the homophobes is on having
a law that protects against 'buggery', 'anal intercourse' and
'homosexual acts between men'. Protect whom? And why the
double-speak?
This debate is not about homosexuality at all; it is about
maintaining the damnable fantasies of powerful heterosexual men
in Guyana at the expense of the powerless.
- Yours faithfully, Anil Persaud, British Columbia
Editor's note:
We repeat the editor's note [referred to] in the previous letter.
"Sections 35l, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act
provide as follows:
35l. "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a
party to the commission, by any male person, of any act of gross
indecency with any other male person shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and liable to imprisonment for two years.
352. Everyone who: (a) attempts to commit buggery:; or (b) assaults
any person with intent to commit buggery; or (c) being a male,
indecently assaults any other male person, shall be guilty of felony
and liable to imprisonment for ten years.
353. Everyone who commits buggery, with a human being or with any
other living creature, shall be guilty of felony and liable to imprisonment
for life".
Thus buggery of a male or female of "any other living creature"
attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Actual sentences
have been much lower.
We are not aware of any prosecutions for private homosexual activity.
The new constitution will make discrimination on the basis of
sexual preference unlawful. This could lead to some changes in the
law".
Letter: Representatives of religions on Constitution Reform
Commission did not object to amendment on sexual orientation
(January 25, 2001)
I have noted with interest the storm that is brewing over the
anti-discrimination provision in the reform constitution in relation to
sexual orientation.
Is it not the case that the commissioners represented by the
three major religions in Guyana all gave their assent to the
recommendation when it was tabled at the Constitution Reform
Commission?
If my memory serves me correctly, there was one dissenting
voice, and it was not the voice of Rev Keith Halley, representative
from the Christian religion, nor Mr Vidyanand Persaud, representative
from the Hindu religion, nor Mr Shahabuddin McDoom, representative
from the Muslim religion.
- Yours faithfully, Cavelle A Lynch, Attorney-at-Law, Former Supervisor,
Research and Analysis, Constitution Reform Commission
Letter: Organised religion has historically oppressed many groups
I was having my breakfast this morning -- bakes, salted fish and
freshly brewed coffee -- as I read the Toronto Star newspaper, a daily
pastime of mine. However, this morning my attention was immediately
arrested upon turning to the World page where in a small column
headlined "Guyana" I read that "Christian leaders have called for three
days of fasting and prayer to press President Jagdeo not to sign a gay
rights amendment to the constitution".
As a labour, community, human rights activist, I would suggest,
very respectfully, that these so-called Christian leaders, instead of
fasting and praying to deny fundamental rights -- indeed inalienable
rights -- to gays ought to be fasting, praying and providing for the many
poor, dispossessed, homeless and hopeless people and children I
observed roaming the streets of Guyana on my recent visit.
We must never forget that organized religion -- without
exception -- has historically used the bible and other religious books
to oppress groups of people. However, the level of hypocrisy on this
issue is truly obscene for so many "Christian" leaders while publicly
voicing moral outrage privately engage in the very behaviour they
condemn.
The fifty-five members who voted for the bill should be
commended and I hope that the President moves forward to amend
the constitution to protect the rights of all Guyanese.
- Yours faithfully, June Veecock
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Sexual orientation bill going back to Parliament
By Patrick Denny
The bill banning discrimination against persons
based on their sexual orientation is to be sent back to
Parliament for review following the maelstrom over whether
it would in effect legalise homosexual relations.
Unanimously passed by the National Assembly earlier
this month, it has not yet been assented to by the President
and is therefore not law.
Representatives of religious groups and three parliamentary
parties who met at the Office of the President yesterday agreed
that the Constitution (Amendment) (No.5) Bill should be sent
back to the National Assembly for its reconsideration.
The move to return the bill is almost without precedent and,
according to a knowledgeable source, there is no precedent for
dealing with a bill which is returned by the President and is
subsequently amended.
In returning the bill to the Speaker of the National
Assembly, according to the Constitution, President Jagdeo
would have to indicate his reasons for so doing. If it is not
amended and is returned unaltered after a two-thirds vote by the
Assembly, President Jagdeo is required to assent to it within 21
days unless he dissolves the Assembly earlier.
The legislation, among other things enshrines as a
fundamental right a person's right not to be discriminated against
on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. It was approved by the
National Assembly by a 55-0 vote on January 4, and was based
on recommendations from the Constitution Reform Commission
(CRC). The Christian, Hindu and Islamic communities were
represented on the CRC. Their representatives were Rev Keith
Haley and attorneys-at-law Vidyanand Persaud and Shahabudeen
McDoom respectively.
Sections of the religious community have over the past two
weeks been waging a rearguard battle to have the sexual
orientation ground removed from the fundamental rights section of
the amended Constitution. It fears that the bill would have
far-reaching effects including the legalisation of
"same-sex marriages" and the admission of homosexuals in the
army.
Answering questions from reporters after the meeting,
Guyana Council of Churches (GCC) chairman, Bishop Juan
Edgehill said that while the GCC was supportive of the
amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, it did not want the ban to be enshrined in the
Constitution as a fundamental right.
The meeting was called by President Jagdeo to have the
issue discussed so as to agree on a way forward in addressing
the concerns of the churches.
The representatives of the church had previously met
President Jagdeo and he had assured them that he would not
assent to the bill so that they could have an opportunity to lobby
the parliamentary parties.
President Jagdeo told reporters after the meeting that
recommitting the bill would give the parties an opportunity to
revisit it to see if the concerns expressed could be addressed.
He said too that he was anxious to get the other sections
of the legislation enacted such as the provisions dealing with
gender equity and the right to education and to work.
President Jagdeo said that he had advised the representatives
of the religious community to lobby the PNC for its support for the
process that the meeting decided should be adopted.
Bishop Edgehill, one of the leading opponents of the bill, said
that he had welcomed the opportunity to discuss the issue with the
representatives of the parliamentary parties -- the PPP/Civic, The
United Force (TUF) and the Alliance for Guyana (AFG). He said
that the discussion on the issue had been cordial, useful and
spirited and that the GCC representatives would be contacting the
PNC Reform to get its support for the procedure for reconsidering
the bill.
He disagreed with the suggestion that the church leaders
had the opportunity to study the bill before it was approved by the
NationalAssembly. It was sanctioned by the Joint Management
Committee on which the PPP/Civic and the PNC are represented.
Fazeel Ferouz a representative of the Moslem community
said that he had been thankful for the opportunity to discuss the
way forward. He said that the amendment in question was
disturbing to his community and the society at large and that his
organisation would be working with the parties to get the
amendment changed to its satisfaction.
Chandra Gajraj, who represented the Hindu community at
the meeting said that she was not convinced that the amendment,
which she supported, would legalise homosexuality.
Responding to questions about the position of the Catholic
Churchwhich supported the amendment, Bishop Edgehill said
that the pastoral letter to the Catholic faithful said that the bill had
offered an opportunity for the church to exercise compassion.
However, he asserted that the position being advocated by the
GCC was not a campaign of hate against homosexuals, whom he
said the church welcomes with open arms.
Recommittal of the bill, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine who
represented the AFG at the meeting said, would allow for
generating the widest possible support for the fundamental rights
section of the Constitution.
Aubrey Collins, who represented TUF and was also a
member of the CRC, said that the party was thankful to the
religious community for highlighting the possible far-reaching
effects of the amendment.
Stabroek News, January 26, 2001
46/47 Robb Street Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana
(Fax: 592-2-54637) (E-Mail: stabroeknews@stabroeknews.com )
( http://www.stabroeknews.com )
Letter: Christians cannot support discrimination based on sexual
orientation
I read an advertisement in your Sunday issue on the recent
amendment to the constitution to prevent discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation and feel that while the content has some merit
from a Christian perspective, it does not address the intent of the Act.
The issue addressed by the Act is that of discrimination and it
has attempted to be legally specific, thus including discrimination
based on one's sexual orientation. Surely a Christian cannot support
discrimination against a person because of his/her sexual orientation.
Further, such a position against discrimination does not imply
any support for homosexuality.
In fact, the churches should be glad that such legislation has
been introduced especially when we consider that many offenders
in this area of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation claim
to be Christians, who believe that we are all made in the image and
likeness of God. Surely God did not make any exceptions in his
creation of the human species, which would allow us scope for
discrimination!
We must remember that apartheid was founded on precisely
this sort of discrimination, except that the base was colour of skin
rather than sexual orientation.
Finally, we Christians must cultivate the virtue of tolerance
since it will allow us opportunities to sincerely reach out to all our
brothers and sisters even those who may hold radically different
moral positions from our own.
- Yours faithfully, Fr Malcolm Rodrigues SJ
Letter: There was no response earlier on the constitutional
amendment on homosexuality
I refer to my letter captioned "Is homosexuality a crime"
(5.ll.2000) bringing attention to the fact that New International
Magazine had published an article stating that homosexuality in
Guyana was punishable by either death or life in prison. While
acknowledging that there was a maximum penalty for buggery of
life imprisonment, not death, you indicated in the editor's note that
proposed reforms to the Constitution currently underway would
radically change the existing laws. Your note to the best of my
recollection, provoked no response. However, that was a deceptive
calm and the storm has broken.
As the lobbying by religious church leaders and religious
political leaders gets underway, I'd like to lobby the 55-0 members
of the National Assembly (especially the Parliamentary Affairs
Minister, Reepu Daman Persaud) who approved this progressive
piece of legislation on behalf of people who'd like to live their lives
without fear of ignorance.
I remind the members to bear in mind while being lobbied that
religious leaders of one orientation or another, at one time or another,
also strenuously battled against the abolition of slavery and
apartheid, employment equity for Dalits and the abolition of laws that
valued the legal testimony of women at half of that of a man's.
Furthermore, what is very curious in this debate is the absence of
any mention of female homosexuality. Could this be because
heterosexually dominated society has other ways of dealing with
'out of control' female sexuality, for example, by the cutlass? As if
under some sort of threat, the focus of the homophobes is on having
a law that protects against 'buggery', 'anal intercourse' and
'homosexual acts between men'. Protect whom? And why the
double-speak?
This debate is not about homosexuality at all; it is about
maintaining the damnable fantasies of powerful heterosexual men
in Guyana at the expense of the powerless.
- Yours faithfully, Anil Persaud, British Columbia
Editor's note:
We repeat the editor's note [referred to] in the previous letter.
"Sections 35l, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act
provide as follows:
35l. "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a
party to the commission, by any male person, of any act of gross
indecency with any other male person shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and liable to imprisonment for two years.
352. Everyone who: (a) attempts to commit buggery:; or (b) assaults
any person with intent to commit buggery; or (c) being a male,
indecently assaults any other male person, shall be guilty of felony
and liable to imprisonment for ten years.
353. Everyone who commits buggery, with a human being or with any
other living creature, shall be guilty of felony and liable to imprisonment
for life".
Thus buggery of a male or female of "any other living creature"
attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Actual sentences
have been much lower.
We are not aware of any prosecutions for private homosexual activity.
The new constitution will make discrimination on the basis of
sexual preference unlawful. This could lead to some changes in the
law".
Letter: Representatives of religions on Constitution Reform
Commission did not object to amendment on sexual orientation
(January 25, 2001)
I have noted with interest the storm that is brewing over the
anti-discrimination provision in the reform constitution in relation to
sexual orientation.
Is it not the case that the commissioners represented by the
three major religions in Guyana all gave their assent to the
recommendation when it was tabled at the Constitution Reform
Commission?
If my memory serves me correctly, there was one dissenting
voice, and it was not the voice of Rev Keith Halley, representative
from the Christian religion, nor Mr Vidyanand Persaud, representative
from the Hindu religion, nor Mr Shahabuddin McDoom, representative
from the Muslim religion.
- Yours faithfully, Cavelle A Lynch, Attorney-at-Law, Former Supervisor,
Research and Analysis, Constitution Reform Commission
Letter: Organised religion has historically oppressed many groups
I was having my breakfast this morning -- bakes, salted fish and
freshly brewed coffee -- as I read the Toronto Star newspaper, a daily
pastime of mine. However, this morning my attention was immediately
arrested upon turning to the World page where in a small column
headlined "Guyana" I read that "Christian leaders have called for three
days of fasting and prayer to press President Jagdeo not to sign a gay
rights amendment to the constitution".
As a labour, community, human rights activist, I would suggest,
very respectfully, that these so-called Christian leaders, instead of
fasting and praying to deny fundamental rights -- indeed inalienable
rights -- to gays ought to be fasting, praying and providing for the many
poor, dispossessed, homeless and hopeless people and children I
observed roaming the streets of Guyana on my recent visit.
We must never forget that organized religion -- without
exception -- has historically used the bible and other religious books
to oppress groups of people. However, the level of hypocrisy on this
issue is truly obscene for so many "Christian" leaders while publicly
voicing moral outrage privately engage in the very behaviour they
condemn.
The fifty-five members who voted for the bill should be
commended and I hope that the President moves forward to amend
the constitution to protect the rights of all Guyanese.
- Yours faithfully, June Veecock
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Press Release from National AIDS Committee on the murder of Gay Jamaican HIVAIDS advocate Steve Harvey
PRESS RELEASE
MURDER OF GAY JAMAICAN HIV/AIDS ADVOCATE
MUST BE STRONGLY CONDEMNED
The National AIDS Committee strongly condemns the brutal killing of Jamaican, Steve Harvey, a gay HIV/AIDS outreach worker on November 30th. 2005. The NAC is calling for a prompt and thorough investigation of his death. Steve Harvey was taken by unidentified armed men from his house on November 30, the eve of World AIDS Day, and later found dead from gunshot wounds.
The NAC is also requesting that the December 17 concert sponsored by the Government of Guyana and USAID/GHARP launching a new HIV/AIDS campaign to fight stigma and discrimination be formally dedicated to Steve Harvey. Given the way popular music and concerts have been used by Jamaican musicians to promote homophobia, the NAC believes the Guyana ‘Don’t Dis Me’ concert, which is to be addressed by both the President of Guyana and the Ambassador of the United States, is the ideal venue to launch a sustained assault on this form of intolerance and discrimination.
Jamaican popular musicians have been in the forefront of the homophobic campaign in Jamaica which has led to deaths and maiming of men suspected of being gay. Reggae star Buju Banton, for example, is presently before the courts along with others charged in an attack in which a gay man was blinded.
The Jamaica AIDS Support Society (JAS) for which Steve Harvey worked was supported by Christian Aid, the development arm of the British Council of Churches and one of Britain’s largest private charities. JAS is involved in fighting homophobia through education. Specifically JAS pledges “to promote changes in attitudes and behaviour and empower persons to respond positively to the challenges”.
Harvey was described by Human Rights Watch as “a person of extraordinary bravery and integrity, who worked tirelessly to ensure some of Jamaica’s most marginalized people had the tools and information to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS”.
While homophobia – hatred of gay people - is exceptionally virulent in Jamaica, the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean is too complacent on this issue. It must bring itself to reject and condemn this barbaric behaviour and the attitudes which support it. Jamaican singers, whose lyrics inciting hostility to gays are banned in other parts of the world, are feted with no such reservation around the Caribbean.
Given our capacity for ‘follow pattern’, steps are needed to ensure copy-cat homophobia must be emphatically discouraged. Caribbean people are generally tolerant of many things. People of gay orientation have lived – some quite openly in communities - without comment for decades. Opinion-makers, particularly religious and political leaders, need to reflect how much they may be responsible for fostering intolerance and homophobia.
- 2 -
The Caricom community in general has to decide whether it wants to function in a world governed by tolerance and respect for diversity, or to remain entrenched in bigotry, vindictiveness and discrimination. Those who have assumed leadership of the fight against HIV/AIDS – governments, donors and church leaders – have a particular duty to demonstrate leadership in this area.
We realize taking a public stand against homophobia requires a degree of courage. However, in light of Steve Harvey’s death and its implications for the rest of the Caribbean, the ‘Don’t Dis Me’ concert should not risk passing off as one more ‘feel good’ event.
Let Steve Harvey’s death be the start of a new era.
National AIDS Committee
December 6 2005
Contact Persons:
Gloria DeCaires (NAC) tel: 254-0311
Merle Mendonca (NAC) tel: 227-4911
Rev. Barrington Litchmore (NAC) tel: 226-1215
Sharon Santiago (RAC Sub-Region 1) tel: 777-5029
Shondell Butters (RAC Reg.#2 tel: 774-4227
Dennis McKenzie (RAC Reg.#3) tel: 254-0761
Janice Bowen (RAC Reg.#5) tel: 221-2209
Therysa Lewis (RAC Reg#6) tel: 333-2391
Ivor Melville/Marilyn Sobryan/Patricia Smith tel# (RAC# 7) tel: 4552462/455-2339
Sandra Rodrigues (RAC Sub-Reg.#9) tel: 772-2006
Carla Nedd (RAC Reg.#10) tel: 442-0877
The National AIDS Committee (NAC) is a voluntary body which promotes HIV/AIDS policy and
advocacy issues, advises the Minister of Health and assesses the work of the National AIDS Programme
Secretariat (NAPS) in relation to the National AIDS Programme/Strategic Plan. The NAC also encourages
the formation of Regional Aids Committees (RACs) and networking amongst NGOs involved in the fight
against the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
MURDER OF GAY JAMAICAN HIV/AIDS ADVOCATE
MUST BE STRONGLY CONDEMNED
The National AIDS Committee strongly condemns the brutal killing of Jamaican, Steve Harvey, a gay HIV/AIDS outreach worker on November 30th. 2005. The NAC is calling for a prompt and thorough investigation of his death. Steve Harvey was taken by unidentified armed men from his house on November 30, the eve of World AIDS Day, and later found dead from gunshot wounds.
The NAC is also requesting that the December 17 concert sponsored by the Government of Guyana and USAID/GHARP launching a new HIV/AIDS campaign to fight stigma and discrimination be formally dedicated to Steve Harvey. Given the way popular music and concerts have been used by Jamaican musicians to promote homophobia, the NAC believes the Guyana ‘Don’t Dis Me’ concert, which is to be addressed by both the President of Guyana and the Ambassador of the United States, is the ideal venue to launch a sustained assault on this form of intolerance and discrimination.
Jamaican popular musicians have been in the forefront of the homophobic campaign in Jamaica which has led to deaths and maiming of men suspected of being gay. Reggae star Buju Banton, for example, is presently before the courts along with others charged in an attack in which a gay man was blinded.
The Jamaica AIDS Support Society (JAS) for which Steve Harvey worked was supported by Christian Aid, the development arm of the British Council of Churches and one of Britain’s largest private charities. JAS is involved in fighting homophobia through education. Specifically JAS pledges “to promote changes in attitudes and behaviour and empower persons to respond positively to the challenges”.
Harvey was described by Human Rights Watch as “a person of extraordinary bravery and integrity, who worked tirelessly to ensure some of Jamaica’s most marginalized people had the tools and information to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS”.
While homophobia – hatred of gay people - is exceptionally virulent in Jamaica, the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean is too complacent on this issue. It must bring itself to reject and condemn this barbaric behaviour and the attitudes which support it. Jamaican singers, whose lyrics inciting hostility to gays are banned in other parts of the world, are feted with no such reservation around the Caribbean.
Given our capacity for ‘follow pattern’, steps are needed to ensure copy-cat homophobia must be emphatically discouraged. Caribbean people are generally tolerant of many things. People of gay orientation have lived – some quite openly in communities - without comment for decades. Opinion-makers, particularly religious and political leaders, need to reflect how much they may be responsible for fostering intolerance and homophobia.
- 2 -
The Caricom community in general has to decide whether it wants to function in a world governed by tolerance and respect for diversity, or to remain entrenched in bigotry, vindictiveness and discrimination. Those who have assumed leadership of the fight against HIV/AIDS – governments, donors and church leaders – have a particular duty to demonstrate leadership in this area.
We realize taking a public stand against homophobia requires a degree of courage. However, in light of Steve Harvey’s death and its implications for the rest of the Caribbean, the ‘Don’t Dis Me’ concert should not risk passing off as one more ‘feel good’ event.
Let Steve Harvey’s death be the start of a new era.
National AIDS Committee
December 6 2005
Contact Persons:
Gloria DeCaires (NAC) tel: 254-0311
Merle Mendonca (NAC) tel: 227-4911
Rev. Barrington Litchmore (NAC) tel: 226-1215
Sharon Santiago (RAC Sub-Region 1) tel: 777-5029
Shondell Butters (RAC Reg.#2 tel: 774-4227
Dennis McKenzie (RAC Reg.#3) tel: 254-0761
Janice Bowen (RAC Reg.#5) tel: 221-2209
Therysa Lewis (RAC Reg#6) tel: 333-2391
Ivor Melville/Marilyn Sobryan/Patricia Smith tel# (RAC# 7) tel: 4552462/455-2339
Sandra Rodrigues (RAC Sub-Reg.#9) tel: 772-2006
Carla Nedd (RAC Reg.#10) tel: 442-0877
The National AIDS Committee (NAC) is a voluntary body which promotes HIV/AIDS policy and
advocacy issues, advises the Minister of Health and assesses the work of the National AIDS Programme
Secretariat (NAPS) in relation to the National AIDS Programme/Strategic Plan. The NAC also encourages
the formation of Regional Aids Committees (RACs) and networking amongst NGOs involved in the fight
against the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Press Release - International Human Rights Day 2005
PRESS RELEASE FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Today, Saturday, 10 December 2005, the international community observes Human Rights Day to commemorate the day in 1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR is really the foundation of modern international human rights law.
SASOD-Guyana contends that, as stated in the UDHR, the rights set out therein apply to all without distinction of any kind and that for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community in Guyana, these rights are violated. For instance, the following rights enshrined in the UDHR are clearly not respected in Guyana in relation to the LGBT community:
The right to equal protection of the law without any discrimination (Article 7) is denied by omitting sexual orientation from our constitution and anti-discrimination laws.
* The right to privacy (Article 10) is denied by the existence of ‘sodomy laws’ under s. 352 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Cap. 8: 01 which seek to criminalize sexual activity between consenting male adults.
* The right to work (Article 23) is the most affected among the economic rights as many lesbians, gays and bisexuals in Guyana are being fired or discriminated against in employment policies and practices because of their sexual orientation.
* The right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being including medical care and necessary social services (Article 25) is at conflict with discriminatory policies and practices, some physicians’ homophobia, the lack of adequate training for health care personnel regarding sexual orientation issues or the general assumption that patients are heterosexual.
* Some lesbian, gay and bisexual students in Guyana do not enjoy the right to education (Article 26) because of an unsafe climate created by peers and educators in schools.
Clearly, these rights are not ‘special’ or ‘additional’ rights but the same rights as those of heterosexual persons.
For Human Rights Day 2005, the theme crafted by the UN is “End Torture Now!” Internationally, torture is a burning human rights issue, particularly in light of the so-called “war on terror” in which some states are trying to use ‘the end to justify the means.’
SASOD-Guyana has developed a sub-theme to the UN theme in order to make the issue of torture more relevant to the local context. Our combined theme reads:
End Torture Now!:
Speak out against severe pain and suffering inflicted on the LGBT community in Guyana
Torture is a pressing issue on the human rights agenda for the LGBT community in Guyana. Tortue may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering to punish a person for any act that person or a third part may have committed or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind which seeks to annihilate the victim’s personality and denies the inherent dignity of the human being.
Discrimination of any kind is a human rights violation in itself but one may ask how does discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation amount to torture?
First, the large incidence of unreported physical harassment and violence perpetrated on men perceived to be openly gay, particularly male transvestite commercial sex workers, and the failure of the state to put adequate measures in place to provide equal protection of the law clearly subjects these victims within the LGBT community in Guyana to torture.
Pervasive social discrimination through homophobic taunts and harassment, widespread proliferation of homophobic lyrics in reggae/dancehall music and the failure of the state to institute the necessary legal framework to curb these offences causes severe mental agony which forces victims to conceal their sexual orientation. This quest to escape society’s psychological ‘stone throwing’ results in a whole myriad of problems in social encounters and relationships as persons seek desperately ‘to fit in’ in order to avoid further persecution.
SASOD-Guyana calls on all Guyanese, citizens and state actors alike, to bring to an end the torture inflicted on this segment of our population. Speak out against the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of the LGBT community in Guyana! We call on the state to put the necessary framework, systems and measures in place, legislative and otherwise, in which, according to Article 28, the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR can be fully realized for the LGBT community in Guyana.
End Torture Now!
Speak out against the severe pain and suffering inflicted on the LGBT community in Guyana
Today, Saturday, 10 December 2005, the international community observes Human Rights Day to commemorate the day in 1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR is really the foundation of modern international human rights law.
SASOD-Guyana contends that, as stated in the UDHR, the rights set out therein apply to all without distinction of any kind and that for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community in Guyana, these rights are violated. For instance, the following rights enshrined in the UDHR are clearly not respected in Guyana in relation to the LGBT community:
The right to equal protection of the law without any discrimination (Article 7) is denied by omitting sexual orientation from our constitution and anti-discrimination laws.
* The right to privacy (Article 10) is denied by the existence of ‘sodomy laws’ under s. 352 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Cap. 8: 01 which seek to criminalize sexual activity between consenting male adults.
* The right to work (Article 23) is the most affected among the economic rights as many lesbians, gays and bisexuals in Guyana are being fired or discriminated against in employment policies and practices because of their sexual orientation.
* The right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being including medical care and necessary social services (Article 25) is at conflict with discriminatory policies and practices, some physicians’ homophobia, the lack of adequate training for health care personnel regarding sexual orientation issues or the general assumption that patients are heterosexual.
* Some lesbian, gay and bisexual students in Guyana do not enjoy the right to education (Article 26) because of an unsafe climate created by peers and educators in schools.
Clearly, these rights are not ‘special’ or ‘additional’ rights but the same rights as those of heterosexual persons.
For Human Rights Day 2005, the theme crafted by the UN is “End Torture Now!” Internationally, torture is a burning human rights issue, particularly in light of the so-called “war on terror” in which some states are trying to use ‘the end to justify the means.’
SASOD-Guyana has developed a sub-theme to the UN theme in order to make the issue of torture more relevant to the local context. Our combined theme reads:
End Torture Now!:
Speak out against severe pain and suffering inflicted on the LGBT community in Guyana
Torture is a pressing issue on the human rights agenda for the LGBT community in Guyana. Tortue may be defined as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering to punish a person for any act that person or a third part may have committed or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind which seeks to annihilate the victim’s personality and denies the inherent dignity of the human being.
Discrimination of any kind is a human rights violation in itself but one may ask how does discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation amount to torture?
First, the large incidence of unreported physical harassment and violence perpetrated on men perceived to be openly gay, particularly male transvestite commercial sex workers, and the failure of the state to put adequate measures in place to provide equal protection of the law clearly subjects these victims within the LGBT community in Guyana to torture.
Pervasive social discrimination through homophobic taunts and harassment, widespread proliferation of homophobic lyrics in reggae/dancehall music and the failure of the state to institute the necessary legal framework to curb these offences causes severe mental agony which forces victims to conceal their sexual orientation. This quest to escape society’s psychological ‘stone throwing’ results in a whole myriad of problems in social encounters and relationships as persons seek desperately ‘to fit in’ in order to avoid further persecution.
SASOD-Guyana calls on all Guyanese, citizens and state actors alike, to bring to an end the torture inflicted on this segment of our population. Speak out against the violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of the LGBT community in Guyana! We call on the state to put the necessary framework, systems and measures in place, legislative and otherwise, in which, according to Article 28, the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR can be fully realized for the LGBT community in Guyana.
End Torture Now!
Speak out against the severe pain and suffering inflicted on the LGBT community in Guyana
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Press Release for World AIDS Day 2005
"Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise"
Remove all forms of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation
At the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) held in June 2001, a declaration of commitment with regards to HIV/AIDS was drawn up and signed by all the United Nations memberstates. This declaration states that governments will strive to “enact, strengthen or enforce, as appropriate, legislation regulations and other measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by people living with HIV/AIDS and members of vulnerable groups…and develop strategies to combat stigma and social exclusion connected with the epidemic”.
In Guyana, one of the vulnerable groups is men who have sex with men (MSM). Ironically, this term was created precisely because of the rabid discrimination associated with the word ‘gay’, making these men who have sex with men reluctant to classify and include themselves in such a vilified group as the homosexual population. Members of this vulnerable group therefore suffer the mostsevere stigma and discrimination as it is two-fold – that associated with the virus and that associated with their sexual orientation.
SASOD posits that the government of Guyana has a poor track record with regards to ensuring the fundamental human rights of the homosexual population are respected in that the only legal form of discrimination that exist is against homosexual men. But as the UNGASS declaration makes clear, legislative anti-discrimination initiatives are an essential and integral part of ensuring that there is a comprehensive response to this pandemic, making access, care, education and support available to all without added societal or legal barriers.
The link between discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and the spread of HIV is put forward succinctly in the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Information Sheet: “HIV is transmitted among men who have sex with men not just because of unsafe sex. It is transmitted because homosexual or bisexual identity is not acknowledged, permitted, and supported as a natural development of human personality. It is transmitted because families, communities, and society tolerate or support, implicitly or explicitly, aggression, abuse, and violence against gay men and lesbians. It is transmitted because schools have failed to provide appropriate education and to cultivate supportive environments for gay and bisexual youth. It is transmitted because health-care providers and researchers have failed, because of insufficient awareness and inappropriate assumptions, to ask the right questions and it is transmitted because governments have been slow publicly to support programs directed specifically to men who have sex with men”.
The theme for this year’s World AIDS day is “Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise”. We urge the government and all citizens of Guyana to remember as well the promise to ensure the “full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” by persons living with HIV/AIDS and to bare in mind that until all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are removed, this is one promise that will be broken.
Remove all forms of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation
At the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) held in June 2001, a declaration of commitment with regards to HIV/AIDS was drawn up and signed by all the United Nations memberstates. This declaration states that governments will strive to “enact, strengthen or enforce, as appropriate, legislation regulations and other measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by people living with HIV/AIDS and members of vulnerable groups…and develop strategies to combat stigma and social exclusion connected with the epidemic”.
In Guyana, one of the vulnerable groups is men who have sex with men (MSM). Ironically, this term was created precisely because of the rabid discrimination associated with the word ‘gay’, making these men who have sex with men reluctant to classify and include themselves in such a vilified group as the homosexual population. Members of this vulnerable group therefore suffer the mostsevere stigma and discrimination as it is two-fold – that associated with the virus and that associated with their sexual orientation.
SASOD posits that the government of Guyana has a poor track record with regards to ensuring the fundamental human rights of the homosexual population are respected in that the only legal form of discrimination that exist is against homosexual men. But as the UNGASS declaration makes clear, legislative anti-discrimination initiatives are an essential and integral part of ensuring that there is a comprehensive response to this pandemic, making access, care, education and support available to all without added societal or legal barriers.
The link between discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and the spread of HIV is put forward succinctly in the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network Information Sheet: “HIV is transmitted among men who have sex with men not just because of unsafe sex. It is transmitted because homosexual or bisexual identity is not acknowledged, permitted, and supported as a natural development of human personality. It is transmitted because families, communities, and society tolerate or support, implicitly or explicitly, aggression, abuse, and violence against gay men and lesbians. It is transmitted because schools have failed to provide appropriate education and to cultivate supportive environments for gay and bisexual youth. It is transmitted because health-care providers and researchers have failed, because of insufficient awareness and inappropriate assumptions, to ask the right questions and it is transmitted because governments have been slow publicly to support programs directed specifically to men who have sex with men”.
The theme for this year’s World AIDS day is “Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise”. We urge the government and all citizens of Guyana to remember as well the promise to ensure the “full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” by persons living with HIV/AIDS and to bare in mind that until all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are removed, this is one promise that will be broken.
Review - screening of My Brother Nikhil
The film was amazing, covered the story of gay swimmer Nikil Kapoor who was diagnosed with HIV in 1988. The film touched on his relationship with his family and also with his boyfriend, Nigel in a very subtle and sensitive way.
Most of the people who attended the screening at Sidewalk Cafe thought it was beautiful, though some thought it was too emotional and just 'sat outside'
Look out for our next screening in January.
Most of the people who attended the screening at Sidewalk Cafe thought it was beautiful, though some thought it was too emotional and just 'sat outside'
Look out for our next screening in January.
Letter sent to the Ethnic Relations Commission, re homophobic lyrics
2 Dec, 2005
Ms Christine King
Chief Executive Officer
Ethnic Relations Commission (Secretariat)
66 Peter Rose & Anira Streets
Queenstown
Georgetown
Dear Madam
Re: Request for Intervention by the ERC in the Prohibition of Hate Lyrics
Article 212D paragraph (f) of the Constitution of Guyana states that the one of the functions of the Ethnic Relations Commission is to “encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society”.
We the undersigned as citizens of Guyana believe that sexual orientation is one of the forms of diversity in a plural society and that therefore the ERC holds a constitutional mandate to encourage respect for the rights of gay and lesbian people in Guyana.
The Forum of the Americas for Diversity and Plurality held in Quito which was a precursor to the 2001 World Conference on Racism, stated "Diversity is understood as an intrinsic feature of humankind, societies and cultures. It includes identity and the sexual life and activity of all persons, aspects that, under specific human rights, cannot be subjected to the imposition of models, be subjected to intolerance or the denial of freedom and respect.”
Furthermore, Justice Albie Sachs of the South African Constitutional Court noted that “The acknowledgment and acceptance of difference is particularly important in our country where group membership has been the basis of express advantage and disadvantage. The development of an active rather than a purely formal sense of enjoying a common citizenship depends on recognising and accepting people as they are.”
Homophobia in the public domain presents the greatest threat to the livelihood of gay and lesbian people. Homophobia in Guyana is present in popular cultural expressions. The evidence of the rising trend of homophobia in popular culture was displayed at the concert held by 'Beenie Man' at the National Park at 29 July, 2005 at which he sang freely his song 'Bad Man Chi Chi ' in which he urged the audience to kill and maim all gay and lesbian people.
We the undersigned believe that the state's silence is a tacit approval of the incitement to kill and maim gay and lesbian people. This constitutes an infringement on the right to life under Article 138 of the Guyana Constitution afforded to gay and lesbian people in Guyana. We therefore make this request of the Ethnic Relations Commission to urgently initiate the following actions to stop the incitement of hatred towards homosexual people :
1. Recommend to the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports that any licenses granted for the use of state owned venues prevent the expression of any form of hatred towards any section of the population, including the homosexual population.
2. Recommend appropriate sanctions against promoters and artistes who violate the terms of such licenses.
3. Develop regulations which could prevent the airing of homophobic lyrics (in any language) in all forms of media, especially television and radio.
We look forward to the urgent consideration of the Ethnic Relations Commission as Guyana struggles to build a society which is tolerant of all forms of diversity.
this was signed by
Anton Rocke, Colleen McEwan, Stacy Gomes, Nastassia Rambarran, Vidyaratha Kissoon and others
Results of this action are here.
Ms Christine King
Chief Executive Officer
Ethnic Relations Commission (Secretariat)
66 Peter Rose & Anira Streets
Queenstown
Georgetown
Dear Madam
Re: Request for Intervention by the ERC in the Prohibition of Hate Lyrics
Article 212D paragraph (f) of the Constitution of Guyana states that the one of the functions of the Ethnic Relations Commission is to “encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society”.
We the undersigned as citizens of Guyana believe that sexual orientation is one of the forms of diversity in a plural society and that therefore the ERC holds a constitutional mandate to encourage respect for the rights of gay and lesbian people in Guyana.
The Forum of the Americas for Diversity and Plurality held in Quito which was a precursor to the 2001 World Conference on Racism, stated "Diversity is understood as an intrinsic feature of humankind, societies and cultures. It includes identity and the sexual life and activity of all persons, aspects that, under specific human rights, cannot be subjected to the imposition of models, be subjected to intolerance or the denial of freedom and respect.”
Furthermore, Justice Albie Sachs of the South African Constitutional Court noted that “The acknowledgment and acceptance of difference is particularly important in our country where group membership has been the basis of express advantage and disadvantage. The development of an active rather than a purely formal sense of enjoying a common citizenship depends on recognising and accepting people as they are.”
Homophobia in the public domain presents the greatest threat to the livelihood of gay and lesbian people. Homophobia in Guyana is present in popular cultural expressions. The evidence of the rising trend of homophobia in popular culture was displayed at the concert held by 'Beenie Man' at the National Park at 29 July, 2005 at which he sang freely his song 'Bad Man Chi Chi ' in which he urged the audience to kill and maim all gay and lesbian people.
We the undersigned believe that the state's silence is a tacit approval of the incitement to kill and maim gay and lesbian people. This constitutes an infringement on the right to life under Article 138 of the Guyana Constitution afforded to gay and lesbian people in Guyana. We therefore make this request of the Ethnic Relations Commission to urgently initiate the following actions to stop the incitement of hatred towards homosexual people :
1. Recommend to the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports that any licenses granted for the use of state owned venues prevent the expression of any form of hatred towards any section of the population, including the homosexual population.
2. Recommend appropriate sanctions against promoters and artistes who violate the terms of such licenses.
3. Develop regulations which could prevent the airing of homophobic lyrics (in any language) in all forms of media, especially television and radio.
We look forward to the urgent consideration of the Ethnic Relations Commission as Guyana struggles to build a society which is tolerant of all forms of diversity.
this was signed by
Anton Rocke, Colleen McEwan, Stacy Gomes, Nastassia Rambarran, Vidyaratha Kissoon and others
Results of this action are here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)