The implications of modernizing the law relative to rape of males

Apr 02, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to the SN article “Missing’ teen not sexually molested, police say” (31/03/09) and would appreciate the opportunity to comment!
There is an astonishing predictability about this development…a minor being taken advantage of because of an unfortunate situation, and being “accommodated” into unnatural intercourse by adults so convincingly to the extent that he can later claim that “he did it of his own free will”.
The Police may be unwittingly caught up in a scheme to shift the focus from the extant law to the issue of the “consensual nature” of the criminal act…as much due to the efforts of local gay-rights activists as to the fact that they have occurred elsewhere before.

Guyanese should spare no effort to urge the authorities to obey the existing law, and the existing evidence.
The following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the law review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:
“…. Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors.

Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent….”
How is this relevant to the Guyana context?
Here’s an excerpt (page 3) from “An Initial Assessment of the Stamp-It-Out Legislation” http://www.scribd.com/doc/2072405/An-Initial-Assessment-of-the-Stamp-It-Out-Consultation sent to the Minister of Human Services Priya Manickchand on January 28, 2008, more than a year ago:-
“…. 2. The attention of the Minister was drawn to the fact that “modernizing” the law relative to rape of males, though well-intentioned, had obvious and immediate implications when considered with (3) below.

Guyana’s criminal laws currently prohibit consensual or non-consensual sexual activity between males, whether adults or minors. This includes offences in relation to sexual activity between males, such as s. 351 (gross indecency between males), s. 352 (attempted buggery), s. 353 (buggery) of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:01, and offences in relation to prostitution, such as s. 356 of Chapter 8:01 and s. 165 of Chapter 8:02 (keeping a common bawdy house) and s. 166 of 8:02 (loitering for the purposes of prostitution).

Adopting (or hijacking) a part of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapters 8:01 which expressly prohibits sexual activity between males and offering to use it to deal with a “missing” element under legislation regarding “non-consensual” intercourse in a “special rape court” raises two potential hazards:
– It acts to weaken and possibly demolish the solid walls proscribing (expressly forbidding) homosexual sodomy provided by Ch. 8:01, and replaces it with the alternative prospect of a high-powered team of defence lawyers forcing victims to admit to “consensual” sexual activity for which they were probably paid.

– To the extent that part of the Minister’s well-intentioned but misguided plan now introduces arguments of the crime’s (sodomized rape) “consensual” or “non-consensual” nature, then a door is being opened to argue in future cases about the perpetrator’s or victim’s “sexual orientation” … a right not protected by Guyana’s Laws….”
The above is a classic case illustrating the above, and may just as well have been written to open Priya Manickchand’s eyes, were it not for the gruesome implications for children and parents everywhere.
It remains to be seen whether this advice, offered a year ago, was taken by Minister Priya Manickchand or the Guyana Police Force. I sense that Priya Manickchand does not want the dubious distinction of leading Guyana into a new, uncharted era of debauchery!

Good medical, legal and societal reasons exist for the solid protection provided by Guyana’s criminal law in this regard, and they have not been eroded by the passage of time, as provided by the solid arguments provided by the law review below: “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
The attention of the Commissioner of Police, as well as the Minister of Human Services, is again pointed to the evidence that screams at them. It would be unwise for them to ignore it any longer.
As far as the Stamp-It-Out initiatives were supposed to apply to these cases, then the strong statutory penalties already provided by the extant law should and must be the only considerations that are brought to bear!
Roger Williams

---

---