A pristine and pure society cannot exist where there is unfettered freedom to engage in vulgarities and immoralities

Apr 30, 2010 Letters

---

The Editor,
Politicians the world over behave as if they have the cure for all that ails humanity. Yet the record shows that all they have accomplished is to create unforeseen mayhem and confusion as they make and enforce laws in vain attempts to curb simple social ills.
Here in Guyana, Minister Priya Manikchand is moving down the same path with her baby, the Sexual Offences Bill (SOB) 2009.
Third world politicians are quick to import and impose foreign laws on their populace. Not a second thought is given as to whether these are appropriate within the local economic and social context. It doesn’t matter whether these laws may have failed miserably in their countries of origin, they are still imported wholesale.
The older generation can safely say that they have never heard of nor witnessed many of the sex crimes that is prevalent today, or of the frequency with which they are being committed. Clearly, they were doing something ‘right’ then and now something has gone terribly wrong.
The Editorial of Kaieteur News, Sunday April 25, alluded to the Divine’s (Religion) role in sex crimes in its commentary on the SOB 2009. But before blame is thrown on the Divine, it must be understood that the Divine legislated with absolute knowledge of each and everything in the universe; that is, He knows mankind innermost desires and thus gave laws which are most beneficial for a harmonious society and having the least ‘side-effects’. In comparison, politicians generally make laws to suit their own desires and for maximum political mileage, having scant regards for the difficulties such laws may bring about.
The Divine has set a maxim which can be used to judge whether a law is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The Bible says that ‘… a good tree bears good fruit and an evil tree bears evil fruit…’ (Mat. 7:16-20). In other words, if a law (or idea, etc.) is ‘good’ (just), the result will be of a positive nature but if it is bad’ (unjust), then the result will be negative. America, Britain and other mainly European countries have the highest sex crime rates by comparison despite having similar laws as the SOB 2009. What then is the benefit for having such laws?
By merely raising the age of consent will not automatically stop sexual activity between persons of varying ages. This is an illusion. Such activity will continue and always will. Men have a natural and innate inclination for women (albeit younger) and as long that inclination is not addressed, no amount of legislation will stop that attraction. What will happen is that men will be at the mercy of women and will be thrown into jail at their whims and fancies. Any ordinarily law abiding citizen (man) who momentarily succumbs to temptation will have his entire world crumble around him. Have the politicians really seriously thought about the negative repercussions that this law will bring?
In the name of ‘freedom’, the politicians have allowed the society to be permeated with ‘sex’ (vulgar music, TV. etc) and at the same time expect its citizens, especially the man, to exert Herculean mastery over their natural sexual desires., How many ordinary men, including the politicians and other advocates of the SOB 2009 (see Freddie Kissoon’s article Sexual Fascism in Guyana in the said Kaieteur News), can maintain their composure when they see one of these young girls walking down the street in garments as if Burnham has resurrected and banned cloth?
Contrary to all the hype, this law does not and will not protect against sex crimes. To ‘protect’ means to prevent the harm from occurring in the first place. All this law will do is to mete out maximum draconian punishment to the one deemed to be the offender. The woman has still ‘suffered’; nothing has been protected. They will still be thrown daily at the mercy of men.
The key to solving the problem is to go back to the ‘older’ generation and investigate what they ‘had’ that is missing from today’s society. For instance, the women in those days were under certain restrictions in terms of dressing and other social behaviour, which in most part protected them from being easy prey for unruly men. Even today, in those societies which impose a certain dress/moral code which prevents the man from seeing the natural beauty of the woman or coming into unnecessary contact with her, sex crimes is almost non-existent. This is not to say that they never have such crimes but that in comparison to ‘modern’ society, it pales.
The Alliance for Change (AFC) columnist in the said Kaieteur News publication, p26, hinted at the missing link but it seems the fear of being labeled a ‘fundamentalist’ or a ‘Taliban’ or a ‘fanatic’ caused her to ‘stifle her conscience’. She boldly proclaimed the virtues of the Biblical Commandments and urges the people of Guyana to recognise that the Divine has prescribed sound moral laws to govern the human race. Then she smacks of hypocrisy: “…because of man’s disobedience to Divine laws it has become necessary for us (man) to enact laws to curb sex sins”. Her God that provided sound moral laws has suddenly become incapable of providing sound moral punishment! Has she never heard of ‘stoning’ to death for adultery and other such biblical punishments? Which Bible has she been reading?
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The politicians and legislators think that they know better than God; that God is barbaric but they are compassionate. So they pay lip service to the Divine and legislate according to their visionless whims and so the people must perish (Proverbs 29:18 in the said columnist article).
This fear of being ‘labeled’ has immensely clouded their reasoning ability. The Editor wrote: “… in all the permutations and combinations however, the male is the constant (in sex crimes)”. Really? A casual look at the headlines provides two glaring constants, intoxicants and adultery, which are both abhorred by the Divine.
Instead of becoming a ‘fundamentalist’ and call for laws against these two vices, (which has become accepted norms in society), the editor makes the male the scapegoat and backs an unjust law that will eventually destroy the family and the society. (Which husband will continue to live harmoniously with a wife who has sent him to jail?).
Neither the SOB 2009 nor any other law will work to stop sex crimes, until and unless certain basic and fundamental principles are addressed, foremost among them being the natural and innate attraction of the sexes for each other. If the politicians can grasp that, then the problem will be solved easily.
They need to understand that their ability to legislate is humanely limited and that it is only God who is All-Knowing, All-Wise and when He legislates, He does so with wisdom.
A society which wants ‘American’ freedom must expect ‘American’ problems. A pristine and pure society cannot exist where there is unfettered freedom to engage in all manner of vulgarities and immoralities. Nor can it be achieved by imposing unfair and unjust laws to curb that which arises out of that unfettered freedom.
It is therefore in the best interest of this nation and the men of this nation in particular, that the President should withhold his assent to the SOB 2009 and have it thoroughly studied and re-examined.
Sheik Mustapha

---

---