Human rights deviance in the New Millennium

Jul 14, 2009 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
In response to the letter entitled “Restoring dignity of men and women” published (July 7, 2009, Kaieteur News), I question without regret Mr. Michel Sidibé’s intrigue in condoning homosexuality, as any justification for dignity?
Audaciously, Mr. Sidibé, Executive Director of ‘UNAIDS’, made reference to the judgment by the Delhi High Court, India, which of late decriminalized the 19th Century British Colonial law [Chap. XVI, Sec. 377] of the India Penal Code (IPC) stating clearly that, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
This however is primarily interpreted to be homosexuality, especially sodomy between consenting adults.
The arguments for amending Sec. 377 of the (IPC) was merely a violation with Article 21 of the Indian constitution, that states, every citizen has an equal opportunity to life and is equal before the law.
Notwithstanding this, historically, the destruction of “Sodom and Gomorrah” was perceived as a source of legitimacy for laws that criminalized sodomy in England. For this reason, the English Buggery Act of 1533 penalized acts of sodomy, by lynching.

In 1563, said law, was re-enacted by Queen Elizabeth I, which became a charter for the criminalization of sodomy in the British Commonwealth, thereafter.
This meant that criminal sanctions were deployed to rid society of sexual practices, viewed as reprehensible by the Church.
As of India, “same sex” relationships were largely tolerated; hence were later influenced by the ‘Victorian campaign’ for sexual purity, whereby the British undertook to modify the Indian marital, sexual and domestic arrangements, as they understood such to be ‘primitive behaviour’ and therefore introduced the anti-sodomy law, in1861.
Moreover, Sec. 377 of the (IPC) served as the first “sodomy law” and still is, in many Commonwealth territories a model law.
During that era the law was introduced without question or cultural consultation by the Colonial legislators and jurists.

This move nonetheless integrated support for colonial control for many territories far beyond India and wherever British colonialism was evident.
The British understood the idea of such law(s) may well inspire European morality into the ‘resistant masses’ (slaves); as a result, the legislation was enacted based on the idea that ‘native’ cultures did not penalize ‘perverse’ sex, entirely.
All this was for one reason or another, a Colonial attempt to lay down moral standards of behaviour, both to reform the colonized, and to protect the colonizers against moral lapses.
Today, India is probably the fifth country to have abolished the ban on the “anti-sodomy” law, while many Commonwealth territories which retain similar “anti-sodomy” laws await their turn to abolish such laws, in the name of morality, equality and personal liberty.

Many international NGOs operating locally, inevitably and wholeheartedly accepted this verdict as a way forward to achieving world peace and fostering HIV/AIDS prevention.
Obviously, further lobbying efforts will occur in the name of human rights and personal freedom toward accomplishing the so-called MDGs, throughout the Commonwealth nations.
Although many Governments have agreed to achieve universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment care and support by 2010, the HIV/AIDS pandemic constitutes a significant public health threat worldwide.
This virulent disease will obviously continue throughout the future, until the vaccine is finally released, while many significant pharmaceutical corporations will have received their sound share of profitability and the depopulation agenda accomplished its geometric objectives.

The homosexual cause moved naturally from a request for tolerance to cultural conquest and has clearly opened a cultural conflict .
The rationalisation behind homosexuality seems successful in promoting a message that everyone is at risk of HIV/AIDS, yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in transmitting HIV/AIDS.
Up till now, antagonist and conservative religious groups believe that homosexuality is an ‘unnatural’ behavioural disorder that endangers families and other societal orientations, of a ‘civilized’ status quo.
The real concerns are the disturbing and dangerous affects of homosexuality in the direction of children, middle aged and the elderly folks.

Truthfully, with the emergence of homosexuality, civil societal culture is plagued with mixed messages that create and develop major controversy, which certainly contaminates the moral structure of communities.
Evidently, children automatically imitate what they observe at home, as well as in their surroundings, and exposure to homosexual relations and behaviour in public, without doubt damages the child’s way of thinking.
More so, as they grow older they become unsure of what is normal as against what is abnormal and may well perceive ideas that homosexual behaviour is normal or alright.
A few months ago, Mr. Michel Sidibé, urged all Commonwealth governments to take steps to eliminate stigma and discrimination facing men who have sex with ‘men, lesbians and transgender’ populations.
Consequently it seems as though abolishing “anti-homosexuality” is the order of the day and slowly justifiably advancing across the Commonwealth nations.
Therefore, I propose that these human rights organs should not only praise such decisions such as those countries that have abolished such laws, but in fact advance their agendas further into the legal and civil level.

In other words, homosexuality should then serve as the basis of marriage and the family, or become apart of the educational system, or better yet, religious leadership of the social order, status quo.
To my view, the judgment by Delhi high court rejecting the “anti-sodomy” law as discriminatory and against constitutional morality is all but a superficial amendment in the sociological and legal policy framework.
Some people would argue that gay, lesbian or bisexual orientations constitute ‘human beings’ and should not be treated no differently than any other human.
Whether agreed or disagreed, this behaviour even as a chosen lifestyle, or a psychological fix is unaccepted behaviour; for if in the name of human rights we are human indeed, then our civilized condition should well disgrace primitive behaviour.
Thus under many Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth nations, this behaviour is intolerable and immoral in nature.
Lastly, Guyana as part of the Commonwealth Caribbean upholds its criminal law provisions that criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between people of the same sex [see Chap. 8:01, Sect. 352, 353, and 354] of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act.
Optimistically authentic ‘human rights’ advocates will guarantee that Guyana’s sexual orientation clause of the Constitutional bill, be left to rest in peace, this new millennium.
Alaric Weithers

---

---