Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity

Aug 25, 2008 Letters

Dear Editor,
As a citizen of a member-country of the OAS, it is with some concern that I viewed the adoption of the resolution on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” cited below at the OAS’ fourth plenary session, held on June 3, 2008. The implications for adoption are enormous, and noticeably injurious to the national ethos of member states.

It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have begun to see this resolution as a “victory” for their respective communities.

It is very surprising that the debate at the OAS Secretariat, and its outcome, took place largely outside the knowledge of many citizens of its respective nations.

I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.

It is to be noted that the resolution starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:

“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.”

In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal, medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the “resources allocated in the programme-budget of the Organisation and other resources.”

I am convinced, however, that the obvious departure from responsible judgement on the part of the OAS is due solely on its members and the Secretariat not being informed on the substantial amount of information to the contrary.

The sociological evidence against the adoption or implementation of the resolution is substantial, and I offer below a short introduction for your immediate perusal. The eight articles are, in the main, taken from Regent University’s “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told” law review series. There are others.

My specific requests in writing to you on this occasion follow immediately after:
1: That you communicate my concern — as a citizen of a member state of the OAS — and a copy of this e-mail to the representative of every country present at the fourth session, as a matter of urgency.

2: That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that I, as a citizen of a member state, or organisations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session, before the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.

3: I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the 39th regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission, should the need arise.

4: I further request that the CJAP publish advertisements in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.

5: I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its 39th regular session on the incapacity to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.

Roger Williams

Note: The above letter was written to Guyana’s Representative to the OAS on August 2, 2008. No response has been received from the local office as at August 20, 2008. It is now submitted to the press on August 21, 2008, with copies to PANCAP and the Attorneys-General of CARICOM.