The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) and four men, who were fined last year on a charge of wearing female attire, have filed a motion in the High Court against that section of the law stating that it contravenes their fundamental rights.
Quincy McEwan, Seon Clarke, Joseph Fraser and Seyon Persaud—the four who were fined last year—and SASOD filed for redress seeking, among other things, to have Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02, Section 153(1)(xlvii) under which the men were charged invalidated as irrational, discriminatory, undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional.
The parties are also seeking a declaration that the offence affords different treatment to different persons because of non-conformity to stereotypes based on sex in breach of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex and gender contained in Article 149(1) of the Constitution.
Another declaration being sought is that the said offence, by authorizing different treatment based on sex stereotypes, contravenes the guarantee of equality before the law in Article 149D of the Constitution.
The parties are also seeking a declaration that the offence, by preventing persons from giving expression to their gender identity and dressing in conformity with their innermost beliefs, contravenes the guarantee of freedom of expression contained in Article 146 of the Constitution.
Further, a declaration that all criminal proceedings against the four men who were arrested between February 6 and 7, 2009, based on the allegation of wearing female attire were unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect by reason of the contraventions of the rule of law and the explicit guarantees contained in Articles 1, 30, 139, 144, 149 and 149D of the Constitution.
Among other declarations and reliefs and damages, the parties also seek a declaration that Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson, in telling the four men during the course of the hearing in the Magistrate’s Court that they must attend church and give their lives to Christ, was improperly influenced by irrelevant considerations, discriminated against them on the basis of religion and violated a fundamental norm of Guyana as a secular state in breach of Articles 1, 40, 145 and 149(1) of the Constitution.
Representing the five parties are Senior Counsel Miles Fitzpatrick and Attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes, Arif Bulkan and Gino Persaud.
Last year Stabroek News reported in its February 10 issue that seven persons were fined for wearing female attire. Anthony Bess, Joseph Fraser, Joshua Peters and Seyon Persaud pleaded guilty to the charge. Quincy Mc Ewan, Seon Clarke and Leon Conway pleaded not guilty to the charge of dressing in female attire and loitering.
The facts of the matter read that the seven men were all dressed in female clothing.
Magistrate Robertson had ordered that the men pay fines of $7,500 each for dressing in female clothing and that Bess, Fraser, Peters and Persaud pay $2,000 court costs.
….Then his wife look back and she immediately became a small hill of salt….Don’t let this happen to anymore of our wives…wrong is wrong!!!
Are women cross dressing when they wear slacks/pants? Is a man cross dressing if he wears a burqa?
Who determines what is right from wrong?
Let the ppl wear what they want….this is the yr 2010 not 2010 bc.And that salt story wasn’t meant to be taken literally…sorry buddy.
That this marks a new attempt by sexual orientation activists aand gay militancy to gain a toe-hold of advantage in the courts is without doubt. The courts have traditionally been used and abused by such groups to circumvent the democratic process … the will of the people.
The courts will find plenty of evidence in the law, law reviews, and medical journals that testify to the deleterious effect, and gender confusion, that cross-dressing as psychosexual disorder has on youths and other sections of the population.
The linkages are everywhere, and the lawsuit will illustrate the elitist snobbery that seems to have replaced concern for the people’s well-being. This is no substitute for good social policy.
Instead of recommending repeal of very pertinent legislation, the courts should order prosecution and defence to prepare a judicial review of the 2002 law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002, http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) and other such current reviews cited at page 18 of “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” .
This would clear the air appreciably, and expose the folly that Arif Bulkan et al would have citizens of Guyana swallow if left unchallenged.
Magistrate Robertson in her previous ruling would be pleased to find that her comments about “confusion” are also raised in the psychiatric community. She should peruse the 2001-article by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” (http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf . An excerpt follows:
“….To some, this approach may sound reactionary and anti-gay, antisexual, anti-freedom. Rather, for those men who seek an alternative to the gay lifestyle, this is progressive treatment. Indeed, many men have found these ideas to reflect a truth they sense within themselves. This approach acknowledges the value of gender difference, the worth of family and traditional social values, and the importance of the prevention of gender confusion in children….”
Sasod and their supporters would, again, be found to be actively trying to deceive the Guyanese people. They should be rejected yet again.
Dear Editor,
I knew that this day was coming when the influence of western TV programmings will infiltrate the caribbean, in particular, Guyana and cause confusion amoung our youths, thereby changing their cultural and social behaviour of what is expected of our young people. Here we see that is considered ‘wrong’ is going to be made ‘right’. Way to go PPP.
shf. i am 100% with you on this one.
An outdated law, perhaps from the long before 12th century, and should be abolished forthwith.A good idea to demonstrate this is to be done, is to actually act in person on the law as it is repealed. By having the entire House of Assembly, all party leaders, cross dress at the next sitting,as an act of solidarity.The women will be dressed as men also.
The police has more important things to do like investigating the connection between government officials and Roger Khan, rather than locking up men wearing dresses.
This backward law should be immediately stricken off law books..
Not so fast, Reddy!
There are larger questions that have to be addressed, and the evidence is stunningly opposed to “striking” anything off the books,
There is proximity between gay-rights and cross-dressing rights activists, hence the label GBLT. The action by one represents the opportunity for the other.
First reading by Guyanese citizens should therefore be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). The following excerpt is instructive:
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
“…. Essential to the homosexual agenda is the idea that homosexuals are fighting for basic civil rights denied them by an oppressive society. This argument strikes a sympathetic chord among many Americans, whose decency and sense of fair play demand that all people be treated fairly. However, a closer look at the truth about homosexuality and the political goals of the “gay rights” movement shows that homosexuals are not an oppressed minority, that opposition to special legal protection for homosexuality is not bigotry, and that extending such protection is dangerous to individuals and society….”
“…who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….” Just imagine: some possess ‘moral capital’ implying others do not. And these very ‘morally rich’ blue-blooded civil rightists use that capital to commit adultery, beat their children, cheat on the taxes, and lie and steal? A relative said to me recently, “Oh, I don’t mind gays except when I think about what they do in the bedroom”. My response? “Well then, save your few brain cells by not thinking that far.” I know he ain’t bringing that to me again. Get a life, Williams.
Roger. All your quotations were written by “People,” not Divinity and are therefore open to interpretations. Different people, have different agendas, and are therefore sometimes biased in their writings. For instance, the Bible, was written by men (males) and it is very biased against women. Some parts of the bible, were used by the slave masters to instill fear into the minds of black slaves, to keep them in bondage and subservience. As a descendant of slaves and a witness to oppression, I am loath to condemn those, who others seek to oppress and destroy because of their God given sexuality, based on ignorance and bigotry. The Backward law should be outlawed.
Desi, we have dealt with some of your concerns, and others that you may not be aware of, in the online article “The Case Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )
As you list the You may want to note the stunningly high incidences of inter-community violence in GBLT circles that reflect the nature, and inevitable, consequence of psychosexual disorder. It is illustrated at page 21 of “The case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” cited above.
The “right-to-privacy” delusion is also addressed at page 25 of that same script.
There is nothing ‘normal” about cross-dressing. Indeed, you may be callously neglecting to take into account the agony and dashed hopes … not to mention the cruelty of keeping affected persons from medical treatment … of parents who would almost always NEVER want their children to make such choices.
Sasod’s approach, however, is to fly in the face of the evidence in books such as Jeffrey Satinover’s “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”. It is a well-known and callous gay-militant strategy aimed at keeping their following subservient.
“Stunningly high incidences of inter-community violence in GBLT circles.”? You mean more than among ‘morally capitalized’ heterosexuals? “Decriminalization of Homosexuality”? Not criminal in many books. “There is nothing ‘normal” about cross-dressing. Indeed, you may be callously neglecting to take into account the agony and dashed hopes … of parents who would almost always NEVER want their children to make such choices.” Parents dashed hopes? 50/50 hopes are ‘dashed’ anyway, gay or not. Personally, I hope that someday young people are allowed to make choices for themselves and, regardless of the outcome, to learn from them as others do. What a pathetic tirade, Williams.
Desi.
At one time, blacks were seen as 2/3 of a human being, and were treated as such. Homosexuality is a fact of life. They are PEOPLE, not sub humans worthy of marginalization. Mr Williams should use his knowledge and energy to help the suffering masses in Guyana discard the albatrosses around their necks, instead of dabbling in matters way beyond his comprehension.
Desi, the truly amzing thing that readers of this thread will realize is that pro-GBLT submissions are offering little or no evidence to back up their mostly anecdotal stories.
An appeal to emotion, we will find, is no way to argue the case for the success of a constitutional motion.
Now Desi asks: “… “Stunningly high incidences of inter-community violence in GBLT circles.”? You mean more than among ‘morally capitalized’ heterosexuals? …”
And the answer is … Yes!!!
But Desi will not read of the evidence in law reviews, because gay-militant arguments are suffused, after Satinover, with “denial so comprehensive and complete that self-examination is entirely precluded”.
So we refer Desi … again … to the evidence at page 21 of the online article “The Case Against PANCAP and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )
Under no circumstances would I read the disjointed, misguided rantings of people who consider that they inherently possess “moral capital”. I absolutely respect the GLBT population, support them where I can, and that’s all there is to it.
People should be allowed to dress how they choose. This is 2010, people must be able to express themselves, without fear of discrimination. It’s time that Guyana shed some of its antiquated laws and come on board with civilised society. Magistrate Robertson should should have been severely reprimanded for urrering such nonsense in a court of law, about attending church and giving their lives to Christ, she was completely out of order. I do not support certain life style, but it’s none of my business. People should be tolerant of other peoples’ life styles. I wish them the best of luck.
Anonymous…Who made you the moral barometer of a comment board?
Diamond, I agree with you that the Magistrate was out of order to tell them about giving their lives to Christ, however I vote that the laws of Guyana be upheld.
Were it not for America and the rest of the “civilised world” decreeing these types of unrighteous decrees, we won’t be having this conversation today.
These guys, like a plague, are spreading their lawlessness across the world and we, like blind mice, are following the piper.
What’s next….. if they decide that it’s ok to have sex with animals will we overturn the laws concerning bestiality?
Or if I wake up tomorrow and decide to eat my neighbors, would the laws against cannibalism be overturned as well?
THE LORD IS NEVER MOCKED, AND WHAT WE SOW THAT WE REAP!
Excerpt: “This is 2010, people must be able to express themselves, without fear of discrimination.”
Kids are expressing themselves every day in school by attacking other students, threatening the teachers. They are also expressing themselves on the streets with their vulgar language. They are expressing themselves at home by disrespecting their parents, neighbours, and anyone in authority.
Men are expressing themselves by committing emotional and physical abuse towards their women. They are expressing themselves by stealing and killing and drug use and incest and homosexuality and….
Others are expressing themselves by comitting adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings.
Too much freedom of expression.
Roger and Love GT.
Don’t blame The USA for anything. The pilgrim fathers fled religious persecution in England and came to the USA. Enshrined in the constitution, is the inalienable right to freedom of expression. Uncle Sam did not beg anyone to leave the comforts of their morally upright, puritanical country to deal with its “Moral Bancruptany.” Sustained ignorance is a terrible thing. What is there to fear, because some people choose to live their lives out loud. The Maker gave man, freedom of choice, how they choose, is their business. Who are we to judge.
Diamond’s arguments are interesting here … if only for a moment. It is chock full of innuendo, and short on factual detail.
So, let’s refocus, and deal with the truth …
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-dresing”.
Perhaps Diamond should take the time to read the very short intoduction to the issues by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual” by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi ( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm )
“… Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too–who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant–proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right….”
Peoples’ way of life, is their personal business. Some wear business suites, others wear cross dressing suites.
It’s the little things that we take for granted in life that comes back to haunt us in the future. This is Guyana not the USA and the laws should be respected by everyone. When we begin to condone this type of behaviour it leads to perversions in our society and eventually lawlessness. America took prayer and the bible out of schools and look where it has them today. Soon we must be following everything the Americans do, God Forbid.
Diamond Dog,
If we allow people to do what ever they want, many will be a poisin to your children, sociaity, environment and so-on. I disagree with you and your opinion regarding “civilised society”, for many of our so called “civilised society” do not have the answer to some of the problems they now face, and it is all because some little thing they allowed to grow and spread.
Sorry. Suits, not suites.
It’s about time.
What is the Scottish kilt ? Looks like a skirt to me. Don’t men in Asia, Africa, India and the Polynesian islands wear a wrap ? Well …..
It is high time that this archaic law is repelled the books, high time. I also feel that Magistrate Melissa Robinson should have been reprimanded for her banal and confirmist Christain based advise to the people of seek God and attend church. Guyana is a secular state and therefore, her advise was out of line in a court of law.
How come if the magistrate had told some one go to a bar, take a drink and relax you guys would not have felt the same way, Many with this kind of thinking ends up poisoning their own water.
Sister, you should focus …
The Magistrate applies the law … and you accuse her of “being out of line” because her advice is consistent with the aims and intentions of the same law?
The Magistrate was being humane, and generous … offering sound advice where, sadly, sasod or its affiliates have been sadly lacking.
On the other hand, sasod’s behaviour shows that it takes an astonishing amount of cruelty, duplicity, and callousness, to promote an agenda that willfully keeps your “followers” away from the medical, scientific, spiritual and personal remedies to what is nothing less than a psychosexual disorder.
Roger, Wait a minute here, since when they are my followers, I am not a member of SASOD but I will advocate for them based on the current medical and scientific evidence regarding this condition, and as such Magistrate Robinson’s advise was irrational as this is not a moral issue. The problem here is that a lot of Guyanese see things as black and white, PPP and PNC, well as you can see there are grey area, and this happens to fall into this category. I don’t know if you are familar with those big yards of South GT, well there were people in the yards that were born with ambiguous genatalia, but were classified as one or the other, but in reality they belonged to both genders how does this law affect those Guyanese. I am also miffed that in this day and age of high crime and murder that GPF chooses to arrest these types as oppossed to going after the criminls that wereck havoc on nice law abiding Guyanese. Now I never heard of any arrests of these types when Mr. Burnham was leader of Guyana, and they were around, as one poster remembers, Miss Leopold Street, Miss Hadfield Street, Miss Punt Trench Road, Miss War Lock and so on. Hope you had a nice Mash Roger. Good Night
Sister, my apologies … that should have read “their followers” and not “your followers”.
Having said that, what, exactly, does the “… current medical and scientific evidence regarding this condition,…” say?
The evidence against the GBLT and gay-militant agenda is initially stated in the online article: “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )
And finally, does a politician’s “tolerance” equate with paving the way, in your view, for constitutional motions to legitimize disorders of a psychosexual nature?
Let the people wear what they want. If a woman can wear pants why can’t a man wear a dress?
The next time I ‘wink’ ‘wink’ at a woman, I will not know if ‘she’ is really a ‘he’. How will I know? Can the crossdressers wear a sign? How will I know who the object of my leer is?
csingh.
It is down right rude to be winking at women. That is the kind of backward behaviour the courts in Guyana should be outlawing. It’s sad that some guyanese still display this crude behaviour in civilised society. There are better ways to attract the opposite sex, without winking at them.
Annonymous, What do you mean by perversions and lawlessness regarding the repelling of an antiquated law? It is obvious that you do not understand the arguememt against this antiqauted law, for if you did you would not have used such ambiguous and subjective words like lawlessness and perversions as the outcome for the removal of this law. The law is discriminatory, as it denies the identity of this particular group of Guyanese. Plain and simple, and stop throwing in the prayer and bible reading bit to support your arguement here, for it is invalid, for we are talking about IDENTITY.
The law is NOT discrimanatory. It upholds the moral fiber of society. Don’t forget we have an obligation to follow the laws of nature and any deviation is immoral. Man was not created to be woman.
You are correct in noting that we are talking about IDENTITY. The law is actually protecting the IDENTITY of man from the few that wants to defile it. We cannot change the law to accommodate a few.
How can one deny what CSingh says above?
Put differently, there is proximity between gay-rights and cross-dressing rights activists, hence the label “GBLT”. The action by one represents the opportunity for the other.
First reading by Guyanese citizens should therefore be Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia’s treatment “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right” ( http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ). The following excerpt is instructive:
“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting “rights” to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights movement….”
Ok then. Women must stop wearing pants and go back to them nice, nice Victorian long dresses.