Nothing ‘historic’ about cross-dressing motion
One year ago (February 15, 2009) we had cause to write a letter to the local and regional press, which was published in an edited version by Stabroek News on February 17, 2009 under the caption ‘Sasod should be rejected yet again.’
One year later, Stabroek News now carries the unfortunate story with the triumphant-sounding caption, ‘Historic constitutional motion filed against cross-dressing law’ (February 23). But there is nothing “historic” about this development, except the tragedy in deception and manipulation that it inevitably represents. The really uplifting moment in the debate one year ago came when Noleander Toussaint, a 17-year old student, pronounced definitively on the issue in the article ‘What the people say about cross-dressing being an offence’ (SN, February 16).
We have offered before that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature ‘GBLT.’ The activity of the one group inevitably becomes the ‘opportunity’ for the other. Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about who or what Sasod is promoting in this case. It is not just ‘cross-dressing’ Sasod is addressing, it is trying to gain a toe-hold on legal ground to represent gay, bi-sexual, lesbian and transgender issues. So we have sent the online summary ‘The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality’ as a friend-of-the-court brief to the Guyana Bar Association, the bar associations of every territory in Caricom, the Attorney General in Guyana, and the Attorneys-General in Caricom.
The principal arguments in the letter of February 17, 2009, it should be noted, remain unchallenged by Sasod or any sector of a complicit media.