Steering Committee: M Kleinmoedig, C Mc Ewan, C Orozco, C Robinson, J Simpson et al.
PO Box 1750, 92A Wrightson Rd., Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago
+1-868-463-5599; +1-868-752-8517 • cflagsc@gmail.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2007
To the Editor:
Towards a more open, more tolerant Caribbean
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons have been among the most productive citizens of the Caribbean. Although our place has often gone unrecognised and our status as moral citizens denied, we continue to contribute to the project of building a Caribbean where the equal and inalienable rights of all persons, whatever their social or economic status, are recognised and protected. As the world pauses this week to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the many individuals and organisations across the region who belong to the Caribbean Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays (C-FLAG) are urging Caribbean citizens to reflect on the need to foster a culture of rights in the region that values diversity. There have been clear signs of progress in this regard during 2007.
A sign of hope that our culture of openness, tolerance and hospitality is alive and well is the recent declaration by the Grenadian government, in the context of a controversy over whether it would welcome gay visitors to the country, that “Grenada is a member of the United Nations community and is party to the various Conventions on the respect for and preservation of human rights and non-discrimination” and as such “respects the rights of all persons of all persuasions and lifestyles.” The government added that it would enforce indecency laws in ways “directed at all persons” that would not “target any specific group.” Similarly, by pulling the plug on a concert planned for the St. Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies in September featuring artiste ‘Dr. Evil’ who sings about shooting gay men, the institution’s administration showed its commitment to protecting sexual minorities from the threat of violence. As the Guyanese Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination stated, the response of the university debunked “the prevailing idea that homophobia is an acceptable cultural norm in the Caribbean.”
Nevertheless, if signs that the Caribbean is not defined by homophobia could be seen throughout the year, 2007 was also marked by significant events that indicate that the region has a long way to go in ridding itself of tendencies that violate the rights of all who reside at its margins. A series of public beatings across Jamaica of men perceived to be gay demonstrated the depth of the crisis that socially sanctioned homophobia creates. It took much hand-wringing and soul-searching to bring even church leaders to publicly admit that socially-sanctioned violence against any group, including lesbians and gays, should be anathema to right-thinking citizens.
The profound challenge of how we deal with issues of same sex relationships and their place within Caribbean society was demonstrated by the ban by the Jamaican Minister of Education of a secondary school textbook that mentioned same sex couples as possibly constituting a family and another that mentioned the debate about the social legitimacy of same sex desire. Justified on the grounds that same sex desire was against the cultural values of the country and supposedly illegal, the move suggested that the educational system was not permitted to engage students in reflection on the justification of legal or social sanction of particular questions. This startling censorship of thought and debate signals how much democracy we are willing to risk to ensure that even the concept of discourse around changing laws criminalising homosexuality is not countenanced.
Our vision of equality and a culture of rights cannot be achieved in a context where the purveyors of our popular music celebrate, with impunity, the killing and maiming of citizens and defend such articulations of hate by pointing to ‘Caribbean’ religious and cultural values. Reneging on pledges by his management that he had moved on from his 1992 hit, ‘Boom Bye-Bye’, Buju Banton in October belted out lines from the graphically violent anti-gay song at the Guyana Music Festival. An editorial in the Guyana Chronicle the day following the performance declared that while the violence in the song was to be condemned, Buju’s last minute performance of the piece might have been “understandable within the context of attempts made to have him banned from performing” in Guyana and those fighting homophobia failed to recognise that their actions constituted “an assault on the majority’s most sacred values.” Journalist Ian Boyne, himself no defender of the rights of lesbians and gays, points to the inherent dangers of promoting the killing of citizens as a cultural value. He urges Christians to “disassociate themselves from the deejays who promote violence in the name of defending the Bible … a gross perversion of the Bible, of the sort used by slave owners and assorted oppressors.”
Another challenge to realising our vision is the continued view that the discourse on gay rights is an import into the region and that protests against homophobic violence constitute attempts from the Global North to silence authentic Caribbean voices denouncing practices alien to the region. In fact the entry of voices from the Global North into the debate is, ironically, the result of a failure on the part of local media, faith-based and cultural organisations to engage various local gay rights groups in a true spirit of dialogue. The irony of the situation is doubled when groups that seek to preserve the so-called right of Caribbean peoples to their moral and cultural values are supported and coached by conservative North American Evangelical organisations such as Canada’s Christian Legal Fellowship.
C-FLAG partners across the region call for a new commitment from all sectors of society, including faith-based organisations and the media, to further the vision of a Caribbean where freedom, justice and peace prevail. Without this commitment, the region will remain a place where, to quote Buju, “those who can run, will run.” As he recognises, some of us can’t; others of us are determined not to.
Signed by,
Caribbean Forum for Lesbians, All-sexuals and Gays.
Showing posts with label Law reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Information for Refugee Advocates
SASOD has been asked to provide information in various formats to support claims for asylum for Gay and Lesbian Guyanese who have sought refugee status on the grounds of persecution because of their sexual orientation.
Information has been provided to :-
SASOD does not have the resources to provide data based research evidence. SASOD does not intend to undertake any report writing for payment either. The purpose of this page is to provide information which could be used by advocates of those who are seeking asylum.
This link from Asylum Law provides more current resources.
About Guyana
1. Guyana is an independent country located on the North Coast of South America. The population of 750,000 people lives mostly on the coastland of the country. The population is made of descendants of the indigenous Amerindians, slaves from Africa, indentured immigrants from India, China and Portugal, and other settlers. The country is a former British colony. The cultural influences are from these diverse backgrounds, and the religious influences are Christianity in various denominations, Islam, Hindu, Bahai and others.
Laws
2. The legal structures of Guyana are inherited from the British Legal system, Guyana is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other Rights Conventions established by the United Nations.
3. Section 351, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law Offences Act (8:01) state that
Homophobia in Guyana is grounded on these laws.
Furthermore, the evidence of state sanctioned homophobia exists in :-
a) the President's refusal to assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill in 2001 which would have removed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This refusal was done under pressure from sections of the Christian and Muslim communities.
b) tolerance of music with homophobic lyrics which call for the killing and maiming of homosexuals despite an appeal by SASOD to the Ethnic Relations Commission and other entities which are responsible for maintaining respect for diversity, and for prevention of hate speech. The music reinforces that killing of homosexuals is seen as a righteous thing, and the comments which are reportedly used by attackers of gay men come from these songs.
c) The reluctance of the Government to amend the legislation to prevent stigma and discrimination of men who have sex with men, even though medical services are provided for those men who are affected by HIV/AIDS.
The first attempt to address the legal basis of homophobia is in 2000 during the Constitutional Reform process. The Constitutional Reform committee used the South African model as the basis for a new inclusive society in which human rights are guaranteed for all persons.
6. In January 2001, the Parliament of Guyana voted for a constitutional amendment that would amongst other things, include 'sexual orientation' as one of the characteristics for non-discrimination. The issue was raised again in May 2003, when the Constitutional Amendment bills were passed to establish the various rights commissions.
The public debate was led largely by the Christian and Muslim community which lobbied at all levels to remove that discrimination. The Amendment Bill floundered in Parliament, with no vote being taken. This was because the Government introduced a bill which it had no intention of supporting, creating unprecedented history in the Parliament.
Health/HIV
7. In November of 2004, the Minister of Health acknowledged that the sodomy laws in the Caribbean would have to be repealed to effectively deal with HIV/AIDS . His views were opposed by members of the Evangelical Christian Community, who also protested against the idea that the Ministry of Health would offer condoms to male prisoners. The Cabinet Secretary subsequently indicated that the Government had no intention of changing their position on the Sexual Orientation;
Rights violations
9. SASOD has asserted the following :-
* 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 perceived sexual orientation and are too scared to raise these issues in the public domain for fear of further victimisation
* 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.
10. SASOD has engaged in several public activities to promote awareness around the issues on gay and lesbian rights, while participating in different actions. SASOD has been successful in hosting several events such as a film festival, a leaflet distribution campaign, and some other forums. However, persons have been concerned about the publicity of these events since it is felt that people would be targeted for attending them.
Many gay and lesbian Guyanese hide their sexual orientation since the sodomy laws could be invoked. As a result, some people have accused for example SASOD members of making up stories since there is no evidence to back the stories. The environment of secrecy discourages full evidence led actions in some instances.
Combating homophobia in popular Culture.
11. In December, 2005, SASOD members wrote to the Ethnic Relations Commission, a public body mandated to,amongst other things ““encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society” (Article 212d(f), Constitution of Guyana) requesting sanctions against the musicians and their promoters who attacked gay and lesbian people in their lyrics. The Ethnic Relations Commission responded one year later to say that this appeal did not fall in their mandate.
In 2008, the Minister of Home Affairs noted that two singers were banned from Guyana because of their violent lyrics. He did not mention the nature of those lyrics. Other homophobic singers have visited Guyana and have made statements at their concerts without any sanctions.
12. Police protection of openly gay persons
There are different stories depending on where the person lives, how the person chooses to live and the community in which they live.
“Openly gay” in Guyana usually refers to someone who is usually engaged in sex work and might dress in women's clothes. There is always a risk of violence or verbal abuse. Other gay men who do not wish to live this way would find it difficult to assert themselves since the homophobia in the society could result in persecution in different ways. There is always the threat of violence , and many gay persons have to live dual lives to avoid that violence.
While there are communities of support, the communities of support cannot offer protection.
Gay and lesbian people have different experiences and have found ways to survive in Guyana. The experiences of gay men vary with economic background and political affiliations. Young gay men who live in rural areas are at greater risk if they live openly unless they have affiliations and connections with police or other prominent persons in the community. Communities of support can offer some solace, but no protection and gay men have to find their own ways to survive, and this usually means by not living openly – sometimes living dual lives.
There are serious concerns in Guyana about the inability of the Guyana Police Force to offer protection to citizens in all parts of the country. The number of unsolved crimes is higher than solved crimes (leading to court cases), the most high profile being the murder of Government Minister in office in April 2006.
Critics of the police have included political parties (in Government and in opposition) and civil society organisations. The GPF have indicated that they are short staffed and under resourced and that they have a commitment to professional responses to all reports of crime.The response of the police is inconsistent. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some police are professional, while others respond to reports of homophobic attacks with ridicule and victim-blaming.
Police have been accused of harassing and even beating openly gay men. “Petronella', an openly gay man openly testified on radio on 17 May, 2006 that some police further participate in the harassment of gay men on the streets, and that there are no recourse to complaints since the laws are structured to encourage homophobia. The police did not respond to those claims. Gay male sex workers note that many police also rape and brutalise them, or ask for sexual favours in return for protection.Other gay men have noted that some police would laugh and mock them when they try to make reports of attacks and do not take the reports seriously.
13. Gender Identity and ExpressionThere are some men who are effeminate in their expressions and some who 'cross-dress'
Some cross dressers are attacked in different places. Many of them do not report to the police because they do not have the confidence that police will respond to the attacks.
Challenges
14. SASOD recognises that in Guyana and the English speaking Caribbean, the sodomy laws can be enforced selectively depending on the judicial system. SASOD recognises that other countries, including the United Kingdom have repealed the sodomy laws, and have also enforced stronger legislation to combat sexual assault perpetrated on male victims. The English Speaking Caribbean territories must also overcome the historical injustices which were imposed on people who are not heterosexual.
15. SASOD believes that the homophobic rhetoric emanating from fundamentalist religious bodies in North America and elsewhere will impact on the ability of local activists in the Caribbean to combat discriminatory practices.
16. SASOD notes that different Caribbean Governments, and Government officials have taken different stances on the rights of gay and lesbian peoples. SASOD believes that the Caribbean Governments which are signatory to International Conventions must rise above the pressure exerted in the name of religion to ensure that all citizens can be assured of their right to sexual orientation and gender identity.
April 2009
Information has been provided to :-
- Wilson & Co, Solicitors, UK
- The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
- Gay Men's Health Crisis, New York, USA
- Immigration Equality, New York, USA
- Legal Aid Society, New York, USA
- Glazer del Mar Solicitors, UK
- Masliah & Soloway, PC, USA
SASOD does not have the resources to provide data based research evidence. SASOD does not intend to undertake any report writing for payment either. The purpose of this page is to provide information which could be used by advocates of those who are seeking asylum.
This link from Asylum Law provides more current resources.
About Guyana
1. Guyana is an independent country located on the North Coast of South America. The population of 750,000 people lives mostly on the coastland of the country. The population is made of descendants of the indigenous Amerindians, slaves from Africa, indentured immigrants from India, China and Portugal, and other settlers. The country is a former British colony. The cultural influences are from these diverse backgrounds, and the religious influences are Christianity in various denominations, Islam, Hindu, Bahai and others.
Laws
2. The legal structures of Guyana are inherited from the British Legal system, Guyana is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other Rights Conventions established by the United Nations.
3. Section 351, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law Offences Act (8:01) state that
351. "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 misdemeanour's and liable to imprisonment for two years.4. These laws have not been used to incriminate consensual acts recently, but only used when there is a form of sexual assault, especially against minors.
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".
“If any laws were broken, the police would charge ...”In one recent incident, it was reported that the charges might be laid for sexual acts between a 15 year old boy and an adult male. There is no age of consent for boys in Guyana at the moment, though proposals exist in the reform of the sexual offences legislation.
“Commissioner of Police, press conference, 2004 responding to reporters' questions after a police officer and a civil servant were 'found' in a hotel room.
Homophobia in Guyana is grounded on these laws.
Furthermore, the evidence of state sanctioned homophobia exists in :-
a) the President's refusal to assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill in 2001 which would have removed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This refusal was done under pressure from sections of the Christian and Muslim communities.
b) tolerance of music with homophobic lyrics which call for the killing and maiming of homosexuals despite an appeal by SASOD to the Ethnic Relations Commission and other entities which are responsible for maintaining respect for diversity, and for prevention of hate speech. The music reinforces that killing of homosexuals is seen as a righteous thing, and the comments which are reportedly used by attackers of gay men come from these songs.
c) The reluctance of the Government to amend the legislation to prevent stigma and discrimination of men who have sex with men, even though medical services are provided for those men who are affected by HIV/AIDS.
The first attempt to address the legal basis of homophobia is in 2000 during the Constitutional Reform process. The Constitutional Reform committee used the South African model as the basis for a new inclusive society in which human rights are guaranteed for all persons.
6. In January 2001, the Parliament of Guyana voted for a constitutional amendment that would amongst other things, include 'sexual orientation' as one of the characteristics for non-discrimination. The issue was raised again in May 2003, when the Constitutional Amendment bills were passed to establish the various rights commissions.
The public debate was led largely by the Christian and Muslim community which lobbied at all levels to remove that discrimination. The Amendment Bill floundered in Parliament, with no vote being taken. This was because the Government introduced a bill which it had no intention of supporting, creating unprecedented history in the Parliament.
Health/HIV
7. In November of 2004, the Minister of Health acknowledged that the sodomy laws in the Caribbean would have to be repealed to effectively deal with HIV/AIDS . His views were opposed by members of the Evangelical Christian Community, who also protested against the idea that the Ministry of Health would offer condoms to male prisoners. The Cabinet Secretary subsequently indicated that the Government had no intention of changing their position on the Sexual Orientation;
Dr Ramsammy said existing laws that make prostitution and homosexuality offences are not being enforced and if they are enforced, commercial sex workers and gays will go underground because of fear of discrimination.Dr. Luncheon refutes speculations that Government’s position conflicts with that of the Health Minister Dr. Leslie Ramsammy..
"We know them, and we have stopped criminalising them. We aren't going to take them to court. But our legal books say it’s wrong," he said.
"It's better that you take the thing (laws) off the books than to have them and be hypocritical about it and do nothing about it (HIV). For me it's not a moral issue, the fact is that these things stigmatise people."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2004/11/041116_ramsammy-hiv.shtml
“This may seem to be so, but there is no conflict…there might have been arguments made in the public, maybe even suggestions about courses of interventions from the health perspective; but when it comes to the Government’s positions on sexual orientation, I can assure you that the Government’s position is the Government’s position,” he said.8. The Ministry of Health has embarked on various interventions to prevent HIV/AIDS and to ensure fair treatment of HIV/AIDS infected men who have sex with men. These efforts are driven underground by fear of backlash from the homophobic sections of the religious community and there has been criticism of sections of the health care sector.
(http://www.gina.gov.gy/archive/daily/b041208.html)
Rights violations
9. SASOD has asserted the following :-
* 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 perceived sexual orientation and are too scared to raise these issues in the public domain for fear of further victimisation
"A SASOD affiliate was asked by a human resource officer to change his CV to delete affiliation from SASOD. The officer indicated to him that it would be easier for him since the organisation did not want to get into 'sexual orientation' issues.
"A woman believes she was fired from a financial institution when her employers became aware that she was living with a woman and her child. She did not want to bring this charge because she felt that she had no case and did not want to face further discrimination.
* 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.
10. SASOD has engaged in several public activities to promote awareness around the issues on gay and lesbian rights, while participating in different actions. SASOD has been successful in hosting several events such as a film festival, a leaflet distribution campaign, and some other forums. However, persons have been concerned about the publicity of these events since it is felt that people would be targeted for attending them.
Many gay and lesbian Guyanese hide their sexual orientation since the sodomy laws could be invoked. As a result, some people have accused for example SASOD members of making up stories since there is no evidence to back the stories. The environment of secrecy discourages full evidence led actions in some instances.
Combating homophobia in popular Culture.
11. In December, 2005, SASOD members wrote to the Ethnic Relations Commission, a public body mandated to,amongst other things ““encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society” (Article 212d(f), Constitution of Guyana) requesting sanctions against the musicians and their promoters who attacked gay and lesbian people in their lyrics. The Ethnic Relations Commission responded one year later to say that this appeal did not fall in their mandate.
In 2008, the Minister of Home Affairs noted that two singers were banned from Guyana because of their violent lyrics. He did not mention the nature of those lyrics. Other homophobic singers have visited Guyana and have made statements at their concerts without any sanctions.
12. Police protection of openly gay persons
There are different stories depending on where the person lives, how the person chooses to live and the community in which they live.
“Openly gay” in Guyana usually refers to someone who is usually engaged in sex work and might dress in women's clothes. There is always a risk of violence or verbal abuse. Other gay men who do not wish to live this way would find it difficult to assert themselves since the homophobia in the society could result in persecution in different ways. There is always the threat of violence , and many gay persons have to live dual lives to avoid that violence.
While there are communities of support, the communities of support cannot offer protection.
Gay and lesbian people have different experiences and have found ways to survive in Guyana. The experiences of gay men vary with economic background and political affiliations. Young gay men who live in rural areas are at greater risk if they live openly unless they have affiliations and connections with police or other prominent persons in the community. Communities of support can offer some solace, but no protection and gay men have to find their own ways to survive, and this usually means by not living openly – sometimes living dual lives.
There are serious concerns in Guyana about the inability of the Guyana Police Force to offer protection to citizens in all parts of the country. The number of unsolved crimes is higher than solved crimes (leading to court cases), the most high profile being the murder of Government Minister in office in April 2006.
Critics of the police have included political parties (in Government and in opposition) and civil society organisations. The GPF have indicated that they are short staffed and under resourced and that they have a commitment to professional responses to all reports of crime.The response of the police is inconsistent. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some police are professional, while others respond to reports of homophobic attacks with ridicule and victim-blaming.
Police have been accused of harassing and even beating openly gay men. “Petronella', an openly gay man openly testified on radio on 17 May, 2006 that some police further participate in the harassment of gay men on the streets, and that there are no recourse to complaints since the laws are structured to encourage homophobia. The police did not respond to those claims. Gay male sex workers note that many police also rape and brutalise them, or ask for sexual favours in return for protection.Other gay men have noted that some police would laugh and mock them when they try to make reports of attacks and do not take the reports seriously.
13. Gender Identity and ExpressionThere are some men who are effeminate in their expressions and some who 'cross-dress'
"Section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02 which makes an offence of “being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in female attire, or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in male attire… ”There was a recent case in which several cross-dressers were arrested and charges were laid. SASOD has issued a statement protesting this action.
Some cross dressers are attacked in different places. Many of them do not report to the police because they do not have the confidence that police will respond to the attacks.
Challenges
14. SASOD recognises that in Guyana and the English speaking Caribbean, the sodomy laws can be enforced selectively depending on the judicial system. SASOD recognises that other countries, including the United Kingdom have repealed the sodomy laws, and have also enforced stronger legislation to combat sexual assault perpetrated on male victims. The English Speaking Caribbean territories must also overcome the historical injustices which were imposed on people who are not heterosexual.
15. SASOD believes that the homophobic rhetoric emanating from fundamentalist religious bodies in North America and elsewhere will impact on the ability of local activists in the Caribbean to combat discriminatory practices.
16. SASOD notes that different Caribbean Governments, and Government officials have taken different stances on the rights of gay and lesbian peoples. SASOD believes that the Caribbean Governments which are signatory to International Conventions must rise above the pressure exerted in the name of religion to ensure that all citizens can be assured of their right to sexual orientation and gender identity.
April 2009
Saturday, March 24, 2007
SASOD challenges Ministry of Health Debate in accordance with the Yogykarta Principles
Dear Editor
The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity will be launched on Monday, March 26, 2007 by a group of 29 international human rights experts . They put new pressure on governments: end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, end criminalisation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people's lives, make the promise of equality real.
The Principles affirm binding legal standards which are in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.. They were adopted by a group of distinguished experts in international law following a meeting in Yogyakarta , Indonesia . Among the group of experts are a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - Mary Robinson, UN independent experts , current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges , academics and human rights defenders such as Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, Justice Sanji Mmasenono Monageng from Botswana, Justice Lawrence Mute from Kenya, Alice Miller from Columbia University and others.
The Yogyakarta Principles call for action from the UN human rights system, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations, and others. They will be launched at events coinciding with the UN Human Rights Council's session in Geneva , where last year 54 states called for the Council to act against egregious violations of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
The Yogyakarta Principles address a broad range of human rights standards. Each principle is accompanied by detailed recommendations to governments on how to end discrimination and abuse. The principles also call for action from the UN's human rights system, national human rights institutions, the media, non-governmental organisations, and others.
In Guyana , the Ministry of Health, the National AIDS Programme Secretariat and the Guyana Teachers’ Union have convened a debate on the topic "Teachers who are homosexual/lesbian should not be allowed to teach." The fact that such a topic is even considered debatable by the Government and by the Teachers’ Union which is entrusted with protecting the rights of those employed to teach is indicative of the ambivalence given towards the rights of gay and lesbian people who are employed by the State. Neither agency would have considered debating the suitability for employment based on any other status.
SASOD calls on the Government of Guyana and the Guyana Teachers Union to implement the Yogyakarta Principles, including Principle 12 - The Right to Work which states: “Everyone has the right to decent and productive work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Principle 12 is accompanied by two recommendations to the State. “States shall:
a) Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to eliminate and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment, including in relation to vocational training, recruitment, promotion, dismissal, conditions of employment and remuneration;
b) Eliminate any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity to ensure equal employment and advancement opportunities in all areas of public service, including all levels of government service and employment in public functions, including serving in the police and military, and provide appropriate training and awareness-raising programmes to counter discriminatory attitudes.”
We also call on the Guyana Teachers Union to follow specifically the Additional Recommendation of the Yogyakarta Princples listed as (m) which urges that professional organisations, including those in the educational sectors, “review their practices and guidelines to ensure that they vigorously promote the implementation of these Principles.”
The Yogyakarta Principles were developed in conjunction by the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights. Guyanese legal luminary, Sir Shridath Ramphal, is an honorary member of the International Commission of Jurists. The full text of the "Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" is available at http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/
The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity will be launched on Monday, March 26, 2007 by a group of 29 international human rights experts . They put new pressure on governments: end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, end criminalisation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people's lives, make the promise of equality real.
The Principles affirm binding legal standards which are in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.. They were adopted by a group of distinguished experts in international law following a meeting in Yogyakarta , Indonesia . Among the group of experts are a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - Mary Robinson, UN independent experts , current and former members of human rights treaty bodies, judges , academics and human rights defenders such as Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, Justice Sanji Mmasenono Monageng from Botswana, Justice Lawrence Mute from Kenya, Alice Miller from Columbia University and others.
The Yogyakarta Principles call for action from the UN human rights system, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations, and others. They will be launched at events coinciding with the UN Human Rights Council's session in Geneva , where last year 54 states called for the Council to act against egregious violations of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
The Yogyakarta Principles address a broad range of human rights standards. Each principle is accompanied by detailed recommendations to governments on how to end discrimination and abuse. The principles also call for action from the UN's human rights system, national human rights institutions, the media, non-governmental organisations, and others.
In Guyana , the Ministry of Health, the National AIDS Programme Secretariat and the Guyana Teachers’ Union have convened a debate on the topic "Teachers who are homosexual/lesbian should not be allowed to teach." The fact that such a topic is even considered debatable by the Government and by the Teachers’ Union which is entrusted with protecting the rights of those employed to teach is indicative of the ambivalence given towards the rights of gay and lesbian people who are employed by the State. Neither agency would have considered debating the suitability for employment based on any other status.
SASOD calls on the Government of Guyana and the Guyana Teachers Union to implement the Yogyakarta Principles, including Principle 12 - The Right to Work which states: “Everyone has the right to decent and productive work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Principle 12 is accompanied by two recommendations to the State. “States shall:
a) Take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to eliminate and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment, including in relation to vocational training, recruitment, promotion, dismissal, conditions of employment and remuneration;
b) Eliminate any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity to ensure equal employment and advancement opportunities in all areas of public service, including all levels of government service and employment in public functions, including serving in the police and military, and provide appropriate training and awareness-raising programmes to counter discriminatory attitudes.”
We also call on the Guyana Teachers Union to follow specifically the Additional Recommendation of the Yogyakarta Princples listed as (m) which urges that professional organisations, including those in the educational sectors, “review their practices and guidelines to ensure that they vigorously promote the implementation of these Principles.”
The Yogyakarta Principles were developed in conjunction by the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights. Guyanese legal luminary, Sir Shridath Ramphal, is an honorary member of the International Commission of Jurists. The full text of the "Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" is available at http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/
Saturday, September 23, 2006
SASOD is encouraged by Open Letter from Indian citizens
THE support for the equality of gay and lesbian
citizens around the world was strengthened with the
issuing of an Open Letter to the Government of India
by more than 100 eminent persons of Indian origin
The letter was written by noted author, and endorsed
by Nobel Prize economist Amartya Sen. The other
signatories come from diverse walks of life, and
include academics, public servants, politicians,
lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social
activists and business people. Some of them were
active in the fight for India's independence.
The purpose of the letter was to call for a repeal of
the colonial 'sodomy' laws which the authors believe
are held to oppress homosexual men. They join the list
of notable world citizens like
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, who
themselves survivors of oppression, have condemned the
oppression of gay and lesbian people.
The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination
welcomes the move by the Indian citizens to call for a
review of the legislation which criminalises
consensual same sex relationships.
Guyana, like India, inherited some of the oppressions
inherent in the colonial laws which have been repealed
in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the
Commonwealth.
SASOD calls for a reform of the various legislation
which deals with sexual offences, to remove the ban on
consensual sex. At the same time SASOD has joined with
other interest group to call for the urgent reform of
the legislation to improve the access to justice for
victims of sexual violence, especially child victims.
The signatories to that letter asserted that "There
should be no discrimination in India on the grounds of
sexual orientation. In the name of humanity and our
Constitution this cruel and discriminatory law should
be struck down."
Those who are interested in a progressive and
inclusive democracy in Guyana should also work towards
the removal of discrimination against gay and lesbian
Guyanese.
MEMBERS OF SASOD
citizens around the world was strengthened with the
issuing of an Open Letter to the Government of India
by more than 100 eminent persons of Indian origin
The letter was written by noted author, and endorsed
by Nobel Prize economist Amartya Sen. The other
signatories come from diverse walks of life, and
include academics, public servants, politicians,
lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social
activists and business people. Some of them were
active in the fight for India's independence.
The purpose of the letter was to call for a repeal of
the colonial 'sodomy' laws which the authors believe
are held to oppress homosexual men. They join the list
of notable world citizens like
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama, who
themselves survivors of oppression, have condemned the
oppression of gay and lesbian people.
The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination
welcomes the move by the Indian citizens to call for a
review of the legislation which criminalises
consensual same sex relationships.
Guyana, like India, inherited some of the oppressions
inherent in the colonial laws which have been repealed
in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the
Commonwealth.
SASOD calls for a reform of the various legislation
which deals with sexual offences, to remove the ban on
consensual sex. At the same time SASOD has joined with
other interest group to call for the urgent reform of
the legislation to improve the access to justice for
victims of sexual violence, especially child victims.
The signatories to that letter asserted that "There
should be no discrimination in India on the grounds of
sexual orientation. In the name of humanity and our
Constitution this cruel and discriminatory law should
be struck down."
Those who are interested in a progressive and
inclusive democracy in Guyana should also work towards
the removal of discrimination against gay and lesbian
Guyanese.
MEMBERS OF SASOD
Friday, August 25, 2006
SASOD Endorses Civil Society Committment to Good Governance
Members of the organizations listed below wish to record our disappointment that once again we are approaching general elections without the long-promised constitutional and electoral reforms in place which would make them secure and meaningful. Creation of appropriate electoral constituencies, equal representation of women with men and a candidates’ list which allows voters to know clearly for whom one is voting, are some examples of agreed reforms. Rather than usher in a new and dynamic democracy, elections under our system are a discredited and demeaning ritual.
A related source of disappointment is the seeming willingness of the diplomatic and donor community to travel the same road in spite of their own analysis of the need for implementation of the promised reforms. Calls for peaceful behaviour would be more convincing if accompanied by acknowledgement that the electorate has been short-changed with respect to reforms. Citizens are not prone to electoral violence by coincidence, but by repeated failure of political leadership in general to deliver on their promises.
Pinning hope for change on third party politics rather than constitutional and electoral reform has created a belated need for a flurry of programmes to pacify frustrated citizens, as if they, rather than bankrupt political systems, are the cause of Guyana’s problems.
Failure to implement electoral laws is symptomatic of the broader governance experience of the past four decades. Reforms widely agreed as necessary with respect to the Constitution, the economy, development, the hinterland, the justice system and a host of other pressing needs remain uncompleted from one year to the next and one generation to the next.
However, criticism of the past performance of others should not deflect from, nor excuse our own failures in the civic sector to engage more effectively and consistently in governance processes in our local communities and at the national level.
A first step in correcting this malaise, therefore, is directed to civic, religious, professional, philanthropic, community-based, trade union and cultural organisations to assume greater responsibility for the quality of democracy, development and well-being of our own society. Following this commitment, a process of full consultation among all signatories on the way forward will be set in train. This commitment is inspired by Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution which states:
“The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
While committing our organizations to encourage the peaceful resolution of the up-coming election, we do so in a spirit of making it the last to be held under a political and electoral system so demeaning and undignified.
PLEDGING ORGANISATIONS
African Cultural Development Association, Airy Hall Development Group E'bo, Amerindian Peoples Association, Anglican Church in Guyana, Ann's Grove Development Committee ECD, Ann's Grove Football Team #2 ECD, Ann's Grove Line Star United Football Club Britannia Jamaat ECD, Church Women United -EBD, Church Women United - Guyana Community Based Rehab-EBD, Common Ground
Cullen Women & Youth Development, E'bo, DeWillem Community Council ECD, Guyana Association for the Visually Impaired, Ebenezer Youth Fellowship WCD, General Workers Union, Guyana Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Guyana Citizens Initiative, Guyana Human Rights Association, Guyana Council of Churches, Guyana Trades Union Congress, Help & Shelter, National AIDS Committee
Pomona Women & Youth Reaching Out, E'bo, Red Thread, Rights of Children (ROC), Spring Garden Mandir, E'bo, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, St. Ann's Orphanage, Sunflower Women & Youth Group, Essequibo, Station Road Tuschen Jamaat WCD, Two Friends Dutch Four Community Group, Tuschen Old Road Jamaat WCD
Uitvlugt Ocean View Jamaat WCD, Uitvlugt Pasture Jamaat WCD, Ursuline Sisters in Guyana, Vilvoorden Women's Group E'bo
YMCA - Albouystown, Zeeburg Jamaat E'bo
A related source of disappointment is the seeming willingness of the diplomatic and donor community to travel the same road in spite of their own analysis of the need for implementation of the promised reforms. Calls for peaceful behaviour would be more convincing if accompanied by acknowledgement that the electorate has been short-changed with respect to reforms. Citizens are not prone to electoral violence by coincidence, but by repeated failure of political leadership in general to deliver on their promises.
Pinning hope for change on third party politics rather than constitutional and electoral reform has created a belated need for a flurry of programmes to pacify frustrated citizens, as if they, rather than bankrupt political systems, are the cause of Guyana’s problems.
Failure to implement electoral laws is symptomatic of the broader governance experience of the past four decades. Reforms widely agreed as necessary with respect to the Constitution, the economy, development, the hinterland, the justice system and a host of other pressing needs remain uncompleted from one year to the next and one generation to the next.
However, criticism of the past performance of others should not deflect from, nor excuse our own failures in the civic sector to engage more effectively and consistently in governance processes in our local communities and at the national level.
A first step in correcting this malaise, therefore, is directed to civic, religious, professional, philanthropic, community-based, trade union and cultural organisations to assume greater responsibility for the quality of democracy, development and well-being of our own society. Following this commitment, a process of full consultation among all signatories on the way forward will be set in train. This commitment is inspired by Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution which states:
“The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
While committing our organizations to encourage the peaceful resolution of the up-coming election, we do so in a spirit of making it the last to be held under a political and electoral system so demeaning and undignified.
PLEDGING ORGANISATIONS
African Cultural Development Association, Airy Hall Development Group E'bo, Amerindian Peoples Association, Anglican Church in Guyana, Ann's Grove Development Committee ECD, Ann's Grove Football Team #2 ECD, Ann's Grove Line Star United Football Club Britannia Jamaat ECD, Church Women United -EBD, Church Women United - Guyana Community Based Rehab-EBD, Common Ground
Cullen Women & Youth Development, E'bo, DeWillem Community Council ECD, Guyana Association for the Visually Impaired, Ebenezer Youth Fellowship WCD, General Workers Union, Guyana Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Guyana Citizens Initiative, Guyana Human Rights Association, Guyana Council of Churches, Guyana Trades Union Congress, Help & Shelter, National AIDS Committee
Pomona Women & Youth Reaching Out, E'bo, Red Thread, Rights of Children (ROC), Spring Garden Mandir, E'bo, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, St. Ann's Orphanage, Sunflower Women & Youth Group, Essequibo, Station Road Tuschen Jamaat WCD, Two Friends Dutch Four Community Group, Tuschen Old Road Jamaat WCD
Uitvlugt Ocean View Jamaat WCD, Uitvlugt Pasture Jamaat WCD, Ursuline Sisters in Guyana, Vilvoorden Women's Group E'bo
YMCA - Albouystown, Zeeburg Jamaat E'bo
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Press Statement on Rule of Law - SASOD joins with CEN
Rule of law Under Threat in Guyana
A BATTLE is being played out between the institution which symbolizes law and order in Guyana, namely the Guyana Police Force (GPF), and criminal forces driving the drug enterprises which the government of the day appears unwilling to confront.
At stake is the most basic principle of Statehood, whether Guyana will continue to subscribe to the rule of law. The rule of law means the same rules govern all people. It is a precondition of a democratic state, and is designed to ensure that each person is protected from abuse of power, and that the presumption of innocence prevents any person being punished for false accusations or mistaken identity.
The continuing failure of the GPF or Joint Services operations either to quell violent crime – particularly in Indo-Guyanese communities - or indict drug traffickers has left the population sceptical, suspicious and scornful of the agencies responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice.
This unhealthy situation encourages acceptance of cutting corners with respect to law enforcement and leaves people open to considering even more desperate measures. Moreover, the government reinforces such attitudes by ignoring drug criminals while condemning other types.
People currently voicing support for drug operations providing “protection” should thus think long and hard about the logical consequences for them, their families and communities.
Drug operations first and foremost protect their own illegal enterprises, and they will do this regardless of race or any other considerations. Everyone involved in the drug trade is breaking the laws of Guyana. They protect their illegitimate business by resorting to corruption and violence, safe in the knowledge that a blanket of fear prevents their victims from speaking out.
They will choose their targets, based on their own agenda. For all of these reasons, the only long-term guarantee of public safety is a reinvigorated and professional Guyana Police Force.
The following summary is drawn from a U.S. Drug Enforcement Report released in March 2006 and other sources, and reveals the degree to which Guyana has become enmeshed socially, politically and economically in international drug trafficking:
** 20-25 metric tons of cocaine pass through Guyana annually worth USD150M, yet no public cocaine seizure of more than 10 kilos was made in the last year.
** Drug mules (mainly women) are arrested on every North-bound route out of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport.
** U.S. Customs & Immigration have discovered cocaine concealed in every known export from Guyana.
** Drug barons have been granted timber concessions and duty-free privileges allowing them access to remote airstrips.
** Money-laundering legislation was resisted for several years.
** The commercial community is undermined by goods sold at impossibly low prices by drug-owned companies. Banks cannot compete with the informal, low interest loans made available to business persons.
** Guyana-based drug rings have been prosecuted in Barbados, the UK and the U.S.A, but no drug trafficker has been indicted in Guyana.
** A survey reported that 27% (almost 1 in 3) 11-19 year olds in Guyana have seen cocaine. The same survey reported 60% (almost 2 out of 3) children in Region One can identify the drug.
Over the past three months, Guyana has witnessed a growing campaign led by Roger Khan, allegedly a leading drug trafficker who has been indicted by a U.S. Grand Jury, to have the Commissioner of Police (CoP) removed from office. An official demand in recent days from Prime Minister Samuel Hinds that Commissioner of Police Winston Felix immediately respond to the contents of illegal tape-recordings of his private conversations moved the confrontation to a new level.
CoP Felix for his part has denied the voice on the tape to be his and asserted that never in his 36 years as a police officer had he conspired to frame anybody.
In April 2006 the first tape was circulated to all media houses purporting to be a recording of a telephone conversation between CoP Felix and a leading member of the major opposition party, the PNCR. While the tape was illegal and no one has claimed ownership, the voice on the tape is widely believed to be that of CoP Felix.
In late May a second tape surfaced, in which the person alleged to be CoP Felix appears to discuss planting drugs on a person to have her detained when she was leaving the country. If this were true it would have serious consequences for the rule of law in Guyana.
However, the timing of delivery of the tapes suggests that the motivation is not to protect Guyanese people, but to undermine CoP Felix because of the recent actions against drug operations.
To date the government has shown insufficient concern to investigate the source of the tapes and to encourage the person responsible to come forward so that the tapes can be verified, without which they can never be credible evidence.
The GPF inherited by CoP Felix in 2004 was riddled with political interference which respected no boundaries, a state of affairs which no doubt influenced a delay of almost two years in Felix assuming office after his original designation as CoP. The following excerpt from a Stabroek News Editorial (26 Sept. 2004) captures that malaise:
“Imagine a Jeopardy quiz programme, Guyana style: the clue is: this police official doesn’t follow the news; is unfamiliar with the name of an accused murderer, even when he has approved a gun licence for him only the month before; signs an upgraded firearm licence for the man after he has committed murder because he doesn’t know he has committed murder; believes that taxi-drivers should qualify to carry 9mm weapons; doesn’t know which police officers have been assigned to investigate which murder cases; is too busy to question the system of issuing gun licences; did not investigate reports of phone records between the Minister and a man accused of murder because he is uncertain of their legality;… and cannot pay attention to all drive-by killings…As citizens of Guyana followed the extraordinary performance by former COP Floyd McDonald (ag) a single question must have crossed their collective minds: just who is in charge of the police force during his tenure, because it surely wasn’t him…”
CoP Felix came into office determined to rehabilitate the GPF and to eliminate rogue elements, such as the ‘black clothes’ squad elements, and has placed hundreds of officers and ranks on charges before the courts. His assumption of office brought an immediate end to the unrestrained political interference which characterized his predecessor’s reign.
The government media has pursued a campaign to undermine CoP Felix, claimed widespread loss of public confidence, publicized calls for his resignation by the Private Sector Commission, highlighted the exact date of the end of his term in office and even suggested he may go before that date because of accumulated leave.
Roger Khan claimed in a full-page ad on May 12, 2006 that “During the crime spree in 2002, I worked closely with the crime-fighting section of the Guyana Police Force and provided them with assistance and information at my own expense. My participation was instrumental in curbing crime during this period.”
To date the government has shown no interest in investigating these claims. The period Khan refers to was one in which the bodies of many young men, mainly Afro-Guyanese, were found dead.
This taste of ‘phantom’ justice illustrated what is to be expected when the rule of law is set aside for vigilante justice. This approach to crime-fighting eventually forced the resignation of the Minister of Home Affairs. It is logical that were it to be prolonged it could consume the government itself.
Once the elements responsible for criminalising the economy are allowed to assume crime-fighting roles, the rule of law is decisively undermined. Vigilante forces cannot be controlled and in the long-term no one is safe.
All citizens have a right to presumption of innocence and a fair trial. That right obliges (and protects) the rest of the society from reducing themselves to equally inhuman status by resolving crimes outside of a fair trial framework.
Recommendations
1. Government leaders should balance their attention to the CoP with a more vigorous focus on the enormous illegality generated by drug traffickers.
2. Until any allegations are proven, CoP Felix should be allowed to continue his efforts to re-constitute the GPF as a professional institution free from political interference, corruption, and capable of effective crime-fighting.
3. External assistance to revitalize and reinvigorate the GPF is essential and urgently needed to tackle both violent crime and the drug trade.
4. The private sector and the government should develop a joint strategy for a transition from a drug-fuelled to a legal economy.
5. Civil society organisations, having lapsed into an extraordinary silence during this criminalizing of the society, must find its voice and assert its social responsibilities.
Sponsoring Organisations
CHURCH WOMEN UNITED
CLERICAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION
COMMON GROUND GUYANA
COMMUNITY BASED REHABILITATION PROGRAMME – EBD UNIT
GENERAL WORKERS UNION
GUYANA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
GUYANA TRADES UNION CONGRESS
GUYANA HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
RED THREAD
SASOD
A BATTLE is being played out between the institution which symbolizes law and order in Guyana, namely the Guyana Police Force (GPF), and criminal forces driving the drug enterprises which the government of the day appears unwilling to confront.
At stake is the most basic principle of Statehood, whether Guyana will continue to subscribe to the rule of law. The rule of law means the same rules govern all people. It is a precondition of a democratic state, and is designed to ensure that each person is protected from abuse of power, and that the presumption of innocence prevents any person being punished for false accusations or mistaken identity.
The continuing failure of the GPF or Joint Services operations either to quell violent crime – particularly in Indo-Guyanese communities - or indict drug traffickers has left the population sceptical, suspicious and scornful of the agencies responsible for law enforcement and the administration of justice.
This unhealthy situation encourages acceptance of cutting corners with respect to law enforcement and leaves people open to considering even more desperate measures. Moreover, the government reinforces such attitudes by ignoring drug criminals while condemning other types.
People currently voicing support for drug operations providing “protection” should thus think long and hard about the logical consequences for them, their families and communities.
Drug operations first and foremost protect their own illegal enterprises, and they will do this regardless of race or any other considerations. Everyone involved in the drug trade is breaking the laws of Guyana. They protect their illegitimate business by resorting to corruption and violence, safe in the knowledge that a blanket of fear prevents their victims from speaking out.
They will choose their targets, based on their own agenda. For all of these reasons, the only long-term guarantee of public safety is a reinvigorated and professional Guyana Police Force.
The following summary is drawn from a U.S. Drug Enforcement Report released in March 2006 and other sources, and reveals the degree to which Guyana has become enmeshed socially, politically and economically in international drug trafficking:
** 20-25 metric tons of cocaine pass through Guyana annually worth USD150M, yet no public cocaine seizure of more than 10 kilos was made in the last year.
** Drug mules (mainly women) are arrested on every North-bound route out of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport.
** U.S. Customs & Immigration have discovered cocaine concealed in every known export from Guyana.
** Drug barons have been granted timber concessions and duty-free privileges allowing them access to remote airstrips.
** Money-laundering legislation was resisted for several years.
** The commercial community is undermined by goods sold at impossibly low prices by drug-owned companies. Banks cannot compete with the informal, low interest loans made available to business persons.
** Guyana-based drug rings have been prosecuted in Barbados, the UK and the U.S.A, but no drug trafficker has been indicted in Guyana.
** A survey reported that 27% (almost 1 in 3) 11-19 year olds in Guyana have seen cocaine. The same survey reported 60% (almost 2 out of 3) children in Region One can identify the drug.
Over the past three months, Guyana has witnessed a growing campaign led by Roger Khan, allegedly a leading drug trafficker who has been indicted by a U.S. Grand Jury, to have the Commissioner of Police (CoP) removed from office. An official demand in recent days from Prime Minister Samuel Hinds that Commissioner of Police Winston Felix immediately respond to the contents of illegal tape-recordings of his private conversations moved the confrontation to a new level.
CoP Felix for his part has denied the voice on the tape to be his and asserted that never in his 36 years as a police officer had he conspired to frame anybody.
In April 2006 the first tape was circulated to all media houses purporting to be a recording of a telephone conversation between CoP Felix and a leading member of the major opposition party, the PNCR. While the tape was illegal and no one has claimed ownership, the voice on the tape is widely believed to be that of CoP Felix.
In late May a second tape surfaced, in which the person alleged to be CoP Felix appears to discuss planting drugs on a person to have her detained when she was leaving the country. If this were true it would have serious consequences for the rule of law in Guyana.
However, the timing of delivery of the tapes suggests that the motivation is not to protect Guyanese people, but to undermine CoP Felix because of the recent actions against drug operations.
To date the government has shown insufficient concern to investigate the source of the tapes and to encourage the person responsible to come forward so that the tapes can be verified, without which they can never be credible evidence.
The GPF inherited by CoP Felix in 2004 was riddled with political interference which respected no boundaries, a state of affairs which no doubt influenced a delay of almost two years in Felix assuming office after his original designation as CoP. The following excerpt from a Stabroek News Editorial (26 Sept. 2004) captures that malaise:
“Imagine a Jeopardy quiz programme, Guyana style: the clue is: this police official doesn’t follow the news; is unfamiliar with the name of an accused murderer, even when he has approved a gun licence for him only the month before; signs an upgraded firearm licence for the man after he has committed murder because he doesn’t know he has committed murder; believes that taxi-drivers should qualify to carry 9mm weapons; doesn’t know which police officers have been assigned to investigate which murder cases; is too busy to question the system of issuing gun licences; did not investigate reports of phone records between the Minister and a man accused of murder because he is uncertain of their legality;… and cannot pay attention to all drive-by killings…As citizens of Guyana followed the extraordinary performance by former COP Floyd McDonald (ag) a single question must have crossed their collective minds: just who is in charge of the police force during his tenure, because it surely wasn’t him…”
CoP Felix came into office determined to rehabilitate the GPF and to eliminate rogue elements, such as the ‘black clothes’ squad elements, and has placed hundreds of officers and ranks on charges before the courts. His assumption of office brought an immediate end to the unrestrained political interference which characterized his predecessor’s reign.
The government media has pursued a campaign to undermine CoP Felix, claimed widespread loss of public confidence, publicized calls for his resignation by the Private Sector Commission, highlighted the exact date of the end of his term in office and even suggested he may go before that date because of accumulated leave.
Roger Khan claimed in a full-page ad on May 12, 2006 that “During the crime spree in 2002, I worked closely with the crime-fighting section of the Guyana Police Force and provided them with assistance and information at my own expense. My participation was instrumental in curbing crime during this period.”
To date the government has shown no interest in investigating these claims. The period Khan refers to was one in which the bodies of many young men, mainly Afro-Guyanese, were found dead.
This taste of ‘phantom’ justice illustrated what is to be expected when the rule of law is set aside for vigilante justice. This approach to crime-fighting eventually forced the resignation of the Minister of Home Affairs. It is logical that were it to be prolonged it could consume the government itself.
Once the elements responsible for criminalising the economy are allowed to assume crime-fighting roles, the rule of law is decisively undermined. Vigilante forces cannot be controlled and in the long-term no one is safe.
All citizens have a right to presumption of innocence and a fair trial. That right obliges (and protects) the rest of the society from reducing themselves to equally inhuman status by resolving crimes outside of a fair trial framework.
Recommendations
1. Government leaders should balance their attention to the CoP with a more vigorous focus on the enormous illegality generated by drug traffickers.
2. Until any allegations are proven, CoP Felix should be allowed to continue his efforts to re-constitute the GPF as a professional institution free from political interference, corruption, and capable of effective crime-fighting.
3. External assistance to revitalize and reinvigorate the GPF is essential and urgently needed to tackle both violent crime and the drug trade.
4. The private sector and the government should develop a joint strategy for a transition from a drug-fuelled to a legal economy.
5. Civil society organisations, having lapsed into an extraordinary silence during this criminalizing of the society, must find its voice and assert its social responsibilities.
Sponsoring Organisations
CHURCH WOMEN UNITED
CLERICAL & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION
COMMON GROUND GUYANA
COMMUNITY BASED REHABILITATION PROGRAMME – EBD UNIT
GENERAL WORKERS UNION
GUYANA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
GUYANA TRADES UNION CONGRESS
GUYANA HUMAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
RED THREAD
SASOD
Monday, May 29, 2006
Working to ensure the rights of Guyanese to their sexual orientation and gender identity in Guyana – SASOD 's experience
1. Guyana is an independent country located on the North Coast of South America. The population of 750,000 people lives mostly on the coastland of the country. The population is made of descendants of the indigenous Amerindians, slaves from Africa, indentured immigrants from India, China and Portugal, and other settlers. The country is a former British colony. The cultural influences are from these diverse backgrounds, and the religious influences are Christianity in various denominations, Islam, Hindu, Bahai and others.
2. The legal structures of Guyana are inherited from the British Legal system, Guyana is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other Rights Conventions established by the United Nations.
3. Section 351, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law Offences Act (8:01) states that
The first attempt to address the legal basis of homophobia is in 2000 during the Constitutional Reform process. The Constitutional Reform committee used the South African model as the basis for a new inclusive society in which human rights are guaranteed for all persons.
3. In January 2001, the Parliament of Guyana voted for a constitutional amendment that would amongst other things, include 'sexual orientation' as one of the characteristics for non-discrimination. President Jagdeo refused to assent to the Amendment after pressure from members of the Evangelical Christian and Muslim clergy. The Parliament was dissolved for General Elections. The issue was raised again in May 2003, when the Constitutional Amendment bills were passed to establish the various rights commissions.
4. The public debate was led largely by the Christian and Muslim community which lobbied at all levels to remove that discrimination.
5. SASOD (Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination) is an informal network of people who are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This group formed as a response to the prevailing homophobic conditions and to present the case in support of the rights of gay and lesbian people.
6. The Amendment Bill floundered in Parliament, with no vote being taken. This was because the Government introduced a bill which it had no intention of supporting, creating unprecedented history in the Parliament.
Health/HIV
7. In November of 2004, the Minister of Health acknowledged that the sodomy laws in the Caribbean would have to be repealed to effectively deal with HIV/AIDS . His views were opposed by members of the Evangelical Christian Community, who also protested against the idea that the Ministry of Health would offer condoms to male prisoners. The Cabinet Secretary subsequently indicated that the Government had no intention of changing their position on the Sexual Orientation;
* 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 perceived sexual orientation and are too scared to raise these issues in the public domain for fear of further victimisation
* 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.
9. SASOD has engaged in several public activities to promote awareness around the issues on gay and lesbian rights, while participating in different actions. SASOD has been successful in hosting several events such as a film festival, a leaflet distribution campaign, and some other forums. However, persons have been concerned about the publicity of these events since it is felt that people would be targeted for attending them.
Many gay and lesbian Guyanese hide their sexual orientation since the sodomy laws could be invoked. As a result, some people have accused for example SASOD members of making up stories since there is no evidence to back the stories. The environment of secrecy discourages full evidence led actions in some instances – for example in challenging employment related discrimination.
Combating homophobia in popular Culture.
10. In December, 2005, SASOD members wrote to the Ethnic Relations Commission, a public body mandated to,amongst other things ““encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society” (Article 212d(f), Constitution of Guyana) requesting sanctions against the musicians and their promoters who attacked gay and lesbian people in their lyrics. The Ethnic Relations Commission has so far not responded to this request and this is a serious indictment of the role of a State body.
Challenges
11. SASOD recognises that in Guyana and the English speaking Caribbean, the sodomy laws can be enforced selectively depending on the judicial system. SASOD recognises that other countries, including the United Kingdom have repealed the sodomy laws, and have also enforced stronger legislation to combat sexual assault perpetrated on male victims. The English Speaking Caribbean territories must also overcome the historical injustices which were imposed on people who are not heterosexual.
12. SASOD believes that the homophobic rhetoric emanating from fundamentalist religious bodies in North America and elsewhere will impact on the ability of local activists in the Caribbean to combat discriminatory practices.
13. SASOD notes that different Caribbean Governments, and Government officials have taken different stances on the rights of gay and lesbian peoples. SASOD believes that the Caribbean Governments which are signatory to International Conventions must rise above the pressure exerted in the name of religion to ensure that all citizens can be assured of their right to sexual orientation and gender identity.
September 2007
Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination – SASOD
www.geocities.com/sasod_guyana
email: sasod_guyana@yahoo.com
2. The legal structures of Guyana are inherited from the British Legal system, Guyana is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the other Rights Conventions established by the United Nations.
3. Section 351, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law Offences Act (8:01) states that
351. "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 misdemeanour's and liable to imprisonment for two years.4. These laws have not been used to incriminate consensual acts recently, but only used when there is a form of sexual assault, especially against minors.
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".
“If any laws were broken, the police would charge ...”5. Homophobia in Guyana is grounded around these laws and the advocacy of some religious groups who cite religious teachings to oppose rights to sexual orientation and gender identity. This homophobia has also transferred into popular culture with the influence of some Jamaican based dancehall artistes.
“Commissioner of Police, press conference, 2004 responding to reporters' questions after a police officer and a civil servant were 'found' in a hotel room.
The first attempt to address the legal basis of homophobia is in 2000 during the Constitutional Reform process. The Constitutional Reform committee used the South African model as the basis for a new inclusive society in which human rights are guaranteed for all persons.
3. In January 2001, the Parliament of Guyana voted for a constitutional amendment that would amongst other things, include 'sexual orientation' as one of the characteristics for non-discrimination. President Jagdeo refused to assent to the Amendment after pressure from members of the Evangelical Christian and Muslim clergy. The Parliament was dissolved for General Elections. The issue was raised again in May 2003, when the Constitutional Amendment bills were passed to establish the various rights commissions.
4. The public debate was led largely by the Christian and Muslim community which lobbied at all levels to remove that discrimination.
5. SASOD (Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination) is an informal network of people who are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This group formed as a response to the prevailing homophobic conditions and to present the case in support of the rights of gay and lesbian people.
6. The Amendment Bill floundered in Parliament, with no vote being taken. This was because the Government introduced a bill which it had no intention of supporting, creating unprecedented history in the Parliament.
Health/HIV
7. In November of 2004, the Minister of Health acknowledged that the sodomy laws in the Caribbean would have to be repealed to effectively deal with HIV/AIDS . His views were opposed by members of the Evangelical Christian Community, who also protested against the idea that the Ministry of Health would offer condoms to male prisoners. The Cabinet Secretary subsequently indicated that the Government had no intention of changing their position on the Sexual Orientation;
Dr Ramsammy said existing laws that make prostitution and homosexuality offences are not being enforced and if they are enforced, commercial sex workers and gays will go underground because of fear of discrimination.Dr. Luncheon refutes speculations that Government’s position conflicts with that of the Health Minister Dr. Leslie Ramsammy..
"We know them, and we have stopped criminalising them. We aren't going to take them to court. But our legal books say it’s wrong," he said.
"It's better that you take the thing (laws) off the books than to have them and be hypocritical about it and do nothing about it (HIV). For me it's not a moral issue, the fact is that these things stigmatise people."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2004/11/041116_ramsammy-hiv.shtml
“This may seem to be so, but there is no conflict…there might have been arguments made in the public, maybe even suggestions about courses of interventions from the health perspective; but when it comes to the Government’s positions on sexual orientation, I can assure you that the Government’s position is the Government’s position,” he said.8. SASOD has asserted the following :-
(http://www.gina.gov.gy/archive/daily/b041208.html)
* 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 perceived sexual orientation and are too scared to raise these issues in the public domain for fear of further victimisation
* 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.
9. SASOD has engaged in several public activities to promote awareness around the issues on gay and lesbian rights, while participating in different actions. SASOD has been successful in hosting several events such as a film festival, a leaflet distribution campaign, and some other forums. However, persons have been concerned about the publicity of these events since it is felt that people would be targeted for attending them.
Many gay and lesbian Guyanese hide their sexual orientation since the sodomy laws could be invoked. As a result, some people have accused for example SASOD members of making up stories since there is no evidence to back the stories. The environment of secrecy discourages full evidence led actions in some instances – for example in challenging employment related discrimination.
Combating homophobia in popular Culture.
10. In December, 2005, SASOD members wrote to the Ethnic Relations Commission, a public body mandated to,amongst other things ““encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in a plural society” (Article 212d(f), Constitution of Guyana) requesting sanctions against the musicians and their promoters who attacked gay and lesbian people in their lyrics. The Ethnic Relations Commission has so far not responded to this request and this is a serious indictment of the role of a State body.
Challenges
11. SASOD recognises that in Guyana and the English speaking Caribbean, the sodomy laws can be enforced selectively depending on the judicial system. SASOD recognises that other countries, including the United Kingdom have repealed the sodomy laws, and have also enforced stronger legislation to combat sexual assault perpetrated on male victims. The English Speaking Caribbean territories must also overcome the historical injustices which were imposed on people who are not heterosexual.
12. SASOD believes that the homophobic rhetoric emanating from fundamentalist religious bodies in North America and elsewhere will impact on the ability of local activists in the Caribbean to combat discriminatory practices.
13. SASOD notes that different Caribbean Governments, and Government officials have taken different stances on the rights of gay and lesbian peoples. SASOD believes that the Caribbean Governments which are signatory to International Conventions must rise above the pressure exerted in the name of religion to ensure that all citizens can be assured of their right to sexual orientation and gender identity.
September 2007
Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination – SASOD
www.geocities.com/sasod_guyana
email: sasod_guyana@yahoo.com
Sunday, May 28, 2006
SASOD joins Citzens Elections Network to Monitor Elections
The twenty-two civic and religious organizations listed below have come together on the basis of a shared interest in seeing well-run national elections take place by the due date which the overwhelming majority of the population will perceive to be fair and free from fear. Key components in achieving this result are acceptable technical standards and a conducive and secure environment.
At a meeting held under the auspices of the Forum on Effectiveness & Solidarity (FES) at the Methodist Outreach Centre on Saturday March 18 2006, civic organizations agreed to involve our memberships in appropriate activities at local community levels related to elections.
Organisationally, a network rather than an organization, more accurately captures how we propose to function. In this respect the work will be driven by each organization according to interests and capacities with a Steering Committee rather than a Secretariat coordinating our efforts.
All independent civic and religious organisations and NGOs are invited to join the network. Until a website and e-mail address is established any such organisations should contact the network via ghra_guy@networksgy.com or at the telephone listed below.
Our activities will serve both to strengthen the electoral process and at the same time educate ourselves on the extent to which acceptable standards and a conducive environment are being set in place.
Both of these goals centre principally around provision and dissemination of reliable, impartial and comprehensive information in the preparatory and the polling day phases of election. Our intention is to disseminate reliable information gathered from members to provide civic organizations and the public in general with a sound basis for drawing their own conclusions and advising their members.
We do not seek to duplicate the work of others nor to work on behalf of other interests. In keeping with the above we propose monitoring two dimensions of electoral preparations: technical components which contribute to standards of ‘free and fair’ and a conducive environment free from fear.
The basis of technical monitoring will be the list of deliverables agreed upon in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Government of Guyana, GECOM and donors.
Monitoring the election environment is relatively new for Guyana. This would encompass such issues as the current security environment at community level; specific examples of security-induced restrictions on economic, social and religious activities, state of preparedness and security of designated polling places across the country; intensity of rumours which instill fear, etcetera. We will develop guidance for our memberships on this type of monitoring without exposing our members to risk.
Contact Information :Mike McCormack c/o Guyana Human Rights Centre, Tel: 226-1789
March 24 2006
List of Organisations Inaugurating the Network
Amerindian Peoples Association (APA)
Church Women United – Guyana
Church Women United – East Bank Demerara
Clerical & Commercial Workers Union (CCWU)
Community Based Rehab Programme – East Bank Demerara Unit
Gandhi Youth Organisation (GYO)
Georgetown Ministers Fellowship (GMF)
Guyana Bar Association (GBA)
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Inc. (GCCI)
Guyana Citizens’ Initiative (GCI)
Guyana Council of Churches (GCC)
Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA)
Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC)
Guyana Workers Union (GWU)
National Association of Agricultural Commercial & Industrial Employees (NAACIE)
Rights of Children (ROC)
Red Thread
SASOD
UG Hindu Society
Vilvoorden Women’s Group
YMCA - Albouystown
Youth in Development – Linden
At a meeting held under the auspices of the Forum on Effectiveness & Solidarity (FES) at the Methodist Outreach Centre on Saturday March 18 2006, civic organizations agreed to involve our memberships in appropriate activities at local community levels related to elections.
Organisationally, a network rather than an organization, more accurately captures how we propose to function. In this respect the work will be driven by each organization according to interests and capacities with a Steering Committee rather than a Secretariat coordinating our efforts.
All independent civic and religious organisations and NGOs are invited to join the network. Until a website and e-mail address is established any such organisations should contact the network via ghra_guy@networksgy.com or at the telephone listed below.
Our activities will serve both to strengthen the electoral process and at the same time educate ourselves on the extent to which acceptable standards and a conducive environment are being set in place.
Both of these goals centre principally around provision and dissemination of reliable, impartial and comprehensive information in the preparatory and the polling day phases of election. Our intention is to disseminate reliable information gathered from members to provide civic organizations and the public in general with a sound basis for drawing their own conclusions and advising their members.
We do not seek to duplicate the work of others nor to work on behalf of other interests. In keeping with the above we propose monitoring two dimensions of electoral preparations: technical components which contribute to standards of ‘free and fair’ and a conducive environment free from fear.
The basis of technical monitoring will be the list of deliverables agreed upon in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Government of Guyana, GECOM and donors.
Monitoring the election environment is relatively new for Guyana. This would encompass such issues as the current security environment at community level; specific examples of security-induced restrictions on economic, social and religious activities, state of preparedness and security of designated polling places across the country; intensity of rumours which instill fear, etcetera. We will develop guidance for our memberships on this type of monitoring without exposing our members to risk.
Contact Information :Mike McCormack c/o Guyana Human Rights Centre, Tel: 226-1789
March 24 2006
List of Organisations Inaugurating the Network
Amerindian Peoples Association (APA)
Church Women United – Guyana
Church Women United – East Bank Demerara
Clerical & Commercial Workers Union (CCWU)
Community Based Rehab Programme – East Bank Demerara Unit
Gandhi Youth Organisation (GYO)
Georgetown Ministers Fellowship (GMF)
Guyana Bar Association (GBA)
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce Inc. (GCCI)
Guyana Citizens’ Initiative (GCI)
Guyana Council of Churches (GCC)
Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA)
Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC)
Guyana Workers Union (GWU)
National Association of Agricultural Commercial & Industrial Employees (NAACIE)
Rights of Children (ROC)
Red Thread
SASOD
UG Hindu Society
Vilvoorden Women’s Group
YMCA - Albouystown
Youth in Development – Linden
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Report on participation in 26th world conference of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
Report to IGLHRC on results of participation in the 23rd ILGA Conference in Geneva, March 2006
Guyana and rights to sexual orientation and gender identity
Guyana's debate on the rights to sexual orientation started in 2001 after President Bharaj Jagdeo refused to assent to a vote by the Parliament which would have modified Article 149 of the Constitution of Guyana to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In 2003, this debate resumed as the final amendments to the Constitution were passed through the parliament. The strong opposition from the Evangelical Christian and parts of the Muslim community contributed to the amendment being lost. Guyana also criminalises sex between males in the Criminal Law Offences Act, s351,352,353.
SASOD is a group which formed in 2003, and a relationship for information and knowledge sharing was established with IGLHRC Latin American secretariat. IGLHRC extended an invitation to attend the ILGA world conference and arranged for facilitation of meetings with various officers from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
This participant chose to attend those workshops which dealt with human rights mechanisms, even though all other workshops were equally informative and exciting.
Pre-conference on Religion and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
This workshop was valuable, since the opposition in Guyana is on the grounds of religious fundamental values. The track on Queer Islam was very informative. As a result of the contacts made here, SASOD intends to have messages from Imam Muhsin and Reverend Jide for activities around International Day Against Homophobia. We hope that we could increase the visibility of religious non-homophobic groups in Guyana and the Caribbean to balance the fundamental values which preach all kinds of intolerance.
Pre-conference on health issues, workplace discrimination
The information on lesbian and bisexual women's health will be made available to SASOD members and other interested people. The health of lesbian and bisexual movement is often subsumed under the health of MSM since the HIV funding available allows for discussions only on the health of MSM.
The discussion on same sex domestic violence is also valuable, since it will help to build the capacity of Guyanese organisations which work against domestic violence to intervene better.
The discussion on workplace affirmation was enlightening. The presentation from IBM was very informative, especially since options for employment is one of the main concerns of the LGBT population in Guyana and the Caribbean. These will be used as case studies to prevent workplace discrimination in Guyana.
Funding and International Co-operation
We are happy that in Guyana we have managed to keep our movement local, which was also to avoid the accusation of being 'western' or 'foreign influenced'. We have also been able to move at our own pace without pressure. The sessions on International Co-operation show how linkages, especially knowledge and information linkages, help to promote an issue, and also highlight failures within a country, without the need for urgent appeals or actions. The networking is also important so that internationally, local movements could motivate and support individuals and groups with even moral support, where there is none. Unfortunately, HIVOS does not work in Guyana, so we cannot benefit from their funding or programmes.
LGBT Rights at the UN and ECOSOC processes
This information is valuable, so as to understand the language to use to develop SASOD as an organisation. SASOD could apply for ECOSOC status, if only to highlight the presence of LGBT rights organisations. Other Caribbean Organisations are encouraged to do the same. The Cuban experience is interesting and hopefully more information would be made available. It is also good to know of the Inter American Human Rights system, and to keep in touch with how these mechanisms work for Guyana. There are some ideas to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice and the possibilities of linkages with people like Douglas Sanders could help this.
The workshop which was held with OMT also highlighted the opportunities for networking and information sharing, and the submission made to them through Marcelo Ferreya is in Annex 4 to this document.
Networking and knowledge connections
ILGA LAC members, though language barriers remain an issue, and the legal systems are different, but we still hope to continue some relationships
Inner Circle South Africa (Queer Islam) – to keep the discussion on progressive views on Islam to share with people in Guyana who are interested in Islam.
LaBRYS Kyrgistan - transsexual issues, for some information on how to do some training
Spartacus - to update the gay guide
CENESEX in Cuba which is working on the discussion on gay rights in Cuba
International Day against homophobia – to network on the IDAHOMO events and activities
Meetings attended
29 March
Assistant to Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
This meeting was very important since new information on dealing with the protection of human rights defenders. It was interesting to note how the Human Rights Officers understood how the sodomy laws could also impact on the human rights defenders. A submission, which is in Annex 1, was made.
30 March
Assistant to Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
A submission was made to this special rapporteur and the sharing of information from Guyana about concerns about the abuse of freedom of expression in the homophobic dancehall music; and the fear that at any time the sodomy laws could be invoked to stop teh defense of human rights. A copy of this submission is in Annex 2 to this report.
31 March
Assistant to Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
The submissions to each one of these groups is in the Annex to this report. It was noted that the Caribbian misogny and homophobia are closely linked, and note was taken of the homophobic lyrics which called for the violence against lesbians, and the refusal/apathy of state parties to stop or ban these.
Conclusions
The discussions with colleagues in other parts of the world, who even though some of them operate independently, show that all efforts help to form the foundation of a global movement to remove discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. There is diversity within the international rights movement, but it is clear from this conference that SASOD’s work will be important.
Guyana and rights to sexual orientation and gender identity
Guyana's debate on the rights to sexual orientation started in 2001 after President Bharaj Jagdeo refused to assent to a vote by the Parliament which would have modified Article 149 of the Constitution of Guyana to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. In 2003, this debate resumed as the final amendments to the Constitution were passed through the parliament. The strong opposition from the Evangelical Christian and parts of the Muslim community contributed to the amendment being lost. Guyana also criminalises sex between males in the Criminal Law Offences Act, s351,352,353.
SASOD is a group which formed in 2003, and a relationship for information and knowledge sharing was established with IGLHRC Latin American secretariat. IGLHRC extended an invitation to attend the ILGA world conference and arranged for facilitation of meetings with various officers from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
This participant chose to attend those workshops which dealt with human rights mechanisms, even though all other workshops were equally informative and exciting.
Pre-conference on Religion and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
This workshop was valuable, since the opposition in Guyana is on the grounds of religious fundamental values. The track on Queer Islam was very informative. As a result of the contacts made here, SASOD intends to have messages from Imam Muhsin and Reverend Jide for activities around International Day Against Homophobia. We hope that we could increase the visibility of religious non-homophobic groups in Guyana and the Caribbean to balance the fundamental values which preach all kinds of intolerance.
Pre-conference on health issues, workplace discrimination
The information on lesbian and bisexual women's health will be made available to SASOD members and other interested people. The health of lesbian and bisexual movement is often subsumed under the health of MSM since the HIV funding available allows for discussions only on the health of MSM.
The discussion on same sex domestic violence is also valuable, since it will help to build the capacity of Guyanese organisations which work against domestic violence to intervene better.
The discussion on workplace affirmation was enlightening. The presentation from IBM was very informative, especially since options for employment is one of the main concerns of the LGBT population in Guyana and the Caribbean. These will be used as case studies to prevent workplace discrimination in Guyana.
Funding and International Co-operation
We are happy that in Guyana we have managed to keep our movement local, which was also to avoid the accusation of being 'western' or 'foreign influenced'. We have also been able to move at our own pace without pressure. The sessions on International Co-operation show how linkages, especially knowledge and information linkages, help to promote an issue, and also highlight failures within a country, without the need for urgent appeals or actions. The networking is also important so that internationally, local movements could motivate and support individuals and groups with even moral support, where there is none. Unfortunately, HIVOS does not work in Guyana, so we cannot benefit from their funding or programmes.
LGBT Rights at the UN and ECOSOC processes
This information is valuable, so as to understand the language to use to develop SASOD as an organisation. SASOD could apply for ECOSOC status, if only to highlight the presence of LGBT rights organisations. Other Caribbean Organisations are encouraged to do the same. The Cuban experience is interesting and hopefully more information would be made available. It is also good to know of the Inter American Human Rights system, and to keep in touch with how these mechanisms work for Guyana. There are some ideas to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice and the possibilities of linkages with people like Douglas Sanders could help this.
The workshop which was held with OMT also highlighted the opportunities for networking and information sharing, and the submission made to them through Marcelo Ferreya is in Annex 4 to this document.
Networking and knowledge connections
ILGA LAC members, though language barriers remain an issue, and the legal systems are different, but we still hope to continue some relationships
Inner Circle South Africa (Queer Islam) – to keep the discussion on progressive views on Islam to share with people in Guyana who are interested in Islam.
LaBRYS Kyrgistan - transsexual issues, for some information on how to do some training
Spartacus - to update the gay guide
CENESEX in Cuba which is working on the discussion on gay rights in Cuba
International Day against homophobia – to network on the IDAHOMO events and activities
Meetings attended
29 March
Assistant to Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders
This meeting was very important since new information on dealing with the protection of human rights defenders. It was interesting to note how the Human Rights Officers understood how the sodomy laws could also impact on the human rights defenders. A submission, which is in Annex 1, was made.
30 March
Assistant to Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
A submission was made to this special rapporteur and the sharing of information from Guyana about concerns about the abuse of freedom of expression in the homophobic dancehall music; and the fear that at any time the sodomy laws could be invoked to stop teh defense of human rights. A copy of this submission is in Annex 2 to this report.
31 March
Assistant to Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
The submissions to each one of these groups is in the Annex to this report. It was noted that the Caribbian misogny and homophobia are closely linked, and note was taken of the homophobic lyrics which called for the violence against lesbians, and the refusal/apathy of state parties to stop or ban these.
Conclusions
The discussions with colleagues in other parts of the world, who even though some of them operate independently, show that all efforts help to form the foundation of a global movement to remove discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. There is diversity within the international rights movement, but it is clear from this conference that SASOD’s work will be important.
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
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
Saturday, December 03, 2005
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)