How far will Joel Simpson, Vidyaratha Kissoon and Antoine Craigwell go to fool the government and people of Guyana? We last addressed that question in the online article ‘The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana,’ but as expected, no effective rebuttal was received. The article has been copied to Guyana’s Attorney-General.
And now comes Messrs Simpson and Kissoon’s letter (SN, December 15) captioned ‘The Government of Guyana should vote to restore the reference to sexual orientation in the UN resolution on unlawful killings), and the online comments to that article. Gay-rights activists bring the same tired arguments once again, but more and more Caribbean governments are finally becoming aware of the deception being peddled to them, and this time we have active evidence of the role that SASOD is playing to undermine and influence the position of the Government of Guyana.
Mr Simpson et al forget to mention that it was the Bahamian government that sponsored a resolution last month to reject the inclusion of the latest amendment, and that the arguments still holds good for Guyana and Caricom. Bahamian Permanent Secretary Dr Patricia Rodgers said the concept of gender identity was not universally accepted in international human rights law: “The prevailing view in international law is that discrimination and fundamental freedoms are based on sex (not sexual orientation), as well as race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed.”
The Bahamian government is essentially right, and their choice of diplomatic language admirable. We had in the past circulated the detail and references in the online article ‘The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality’ to the attorneys-general of the Caribbean and the OAS states as we will for this one. The arguments still apply to considerations of the artificial construct called ‘sexual orientation.’
We live in a binary world, and the tragedy of trying to engineer or invent a sex other than male or female, illustrates psycho-sexual delusion. The current laws exist for good, sound, social, legal, medical, moral and personal reasons. Mr Simpson et al have used the human rights argument before, and have been shown to have failed thereby. Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson (‘Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!’) would go on:
“As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade…
“The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances.
“To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:
(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational;
(3)… causing substantial injury
(4)… to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status
(5)… which has no element of moral fault.”
Gay-rights as ‘human rights’ fail comprehensively on these criteria. An astonishing amount of secular research and evidence supports the Guyanese, Bahamian and Caricom positions, but gaymilitancy thrives on the fact that ordinary citizens would rather not read about the alternative style that ‘sexual orientation’ offers.
So, how does the US position, given the tonnage of evidence, now change? In the end, Mr Simpson’s associate in writing the letter above (Mr Vidyaratha Kissoon), becomes the poster child for the effort by the LGBT community and the UN to subvert sovereignty and the national consultative process worldwide. In the process of participating in one of the UN’s notorious side-events, the entire process of national consultation is rendered void, and the UN joins the USA in a perplexing attack against the evidence. The following illustrations tell their own story.
1. The tendency by the UN to encourage special-interest groups to participate in discussions above and beyond the involvement of national governments was unprincipled and dangerous. It is now a matter of record that Mr Vidyaratha Kissoon participated in one such side event which influenced the US position. The modus operandi used in these cases is illuminating.
2. According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input.
3. The ‘advice’ offered by Mr Kissoon flies in the face of the evidence, rendering the action by the current Democraticadministrat- ion in the USA all the more perplexing.
We have an astonishing, but predictable, conglomeration of issues:
i) side-events at the UN that have no place in ethical or logical conduct because they exclude the opposing view;
ii) an administration openly opposed to the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the USA;
iii) an attempt by activist judges in the USA to subvert the will of millions of Californians that voted for Proposition 8, maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and
iv) an attempt by Simpson and Kissoon to circumvent the process of national consultation.
The SASOD position should be rejected out of hand by Guyana’s administration. I sense that the initial evidence above will ensure unanimity with the opposition without any difficulty.