Government consultations must promote human rights standards

Apr 17, 2012 Letters

---

 

 

DEAR EDITOR,
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) welcomes the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon, that the Government intends to launch consultations on the three thorny issues of sexual orientation, death penalty and corporal punishment.  While disposed to give the Government the benefit of substantial doubt, our support for such a process, however, is conditional on it being a good faith effort to promote solutions which respect the relevant human rights involved.
1. GUYANA DOES NOT NEED CONSULTATIONS WHICH ENCOURAGE DIVISIVENESS
In seeking to project the impression that the Guyana Government is “starting from scratch” in bringing up public consultations on these three issues, especially, sexual orientation, Dr. Luncheon is being disingenuous. Widespread consultations on the issue took place during the constitutional reform process of 2000.
The Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) comprised representatives of every sector of civil society labour, religious groups, Bar Association, Youth, Amerindians, etc…. Members fanned out all over the country for consultations and received at sittings opinions from groups and individuals on that issue. At the end of the day the CRC unanimously recommended that in Guyana there should be no discrimination against anyone on the ground of that person’s sexual orientation. The recommendation was forwarded to Parliament and unanimously accepted by members of the Assembly. The Bill was then sent to President Jagdeo for the formality of assent but he refused to assent to it when faced with religious opposition.
What the society now needs from the Government is positive leadership in these areas. What the society does not need is yet another demonstration of how indifferent certain factions of the society are to the consequences of violence against children (corporal punishment), or to deliberate cruelty (capital punishment) or to stigmatize people with sexual orientations different to our own. Since any open-ended invitation will predictably fuel discord, encourage disrespect and end in greater divisiveness, the GHRA proposes that the consultation focus on specific legal amendments on all three issues with the intention of submitting them to Parliament.
Fragmenting the consultation among three Ministries is unhelpful, since the reason they are problematic is identical, namely, all three cases pose challenges to human dignity.
2. CONSULTATION MUST BE RIGHTS-BASED NOT OPINION-ORIENTED
The history of human rights is a history of progressively recognizing and respecting new dimensions of the human person. Abolition of slavery symbolized recognition that all people are equal in dignity; abolition of torture in all circumstances recognizes bodily integrity as inviolable; recognition of the rights of women, of children, of persons with disabilities, of indigenous peoples, all reflect an evolving appreciation of what it means to be human.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process reflects a growing international consensus that this progressive extension of respecting rights of all people is the hallmark of a civilized society. Absorbing and promoting these rights is the sign both of an attentive and caring government and also of courageous national political, civic and religious leadership.
In other words, the Government cannot in good faith launch a consultation around human rights issues without presenting to the nation the wealth of evidence which has strengthened a growing international and regional consensus against the death penalty and corporal punishment and for recognition of differing sexual orientations.  If the government promotes its case in this way and loses, it can hold its head up internationally, regionally and domestically as having upheld its human rights responsibilities.
3. CIVIC MORALITY IS PRIMARILY ROOTED IN THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT RELIGION
Official edginess on these issues reflects in part antagonism among some faith-based factions toward change. However, it is not the Government’s job to find common ground with religious opinion on these – or any – issues. At the end of the day, the ethical drivers for the positions Government adopts ought to be the human rights principles enshrined in the Constitution and international instruments it has ratified, particularly the human rights meta-principle that all human beings are equally deserving of esteem.
Moral progress is best measured by how seriously we work through this insight. Faith-based positions that deepen understanding of equal esteem would be an invaluable contribution to the consultation.
Most people will agree that there is scope in a secular democracy for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs when that accommodation does not affect the rights and freedoms of others.  However, there is a growing need in Guyana for clarity between what is religious and what is properly secular.  This concern is prompted by the ruling party’s penchant for appointing prominent religious figures to political office unaccompanied by any requirement to publicly commit themselves to serve all Guyanese citizens with equal esteem.
A new practice of holding ‘official’ religious services in Government Ministries is also disturbing. However, the most serious and fundamental transgression of the distinction between religious and secular occurred with the announced intention of President Jagdeo, endorsed by his successor President Ramotar, to have the State establish and fund a religious TV Channel. This proposed use of public funds for the promotion and support of religion in our secular state is clearly unconstitutional.
The GHRA, therefore, reiterates its full support for a consultation process which genuinely seeks understanding and acceptance of the Government’s ethical and legal obligations to implement human rights standards as they apply to corporal punishment, sexual orientation and the death penalty.
Executive Committee

---

---