An agenda of a different nature – The Act or the Fact

Jul 19, 2014 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Why do I get the impression that the call by advocacy groups SASOD and the SRI for the removal of Juan Edghill, Member of Parliament and Junior Minister of Finance, has a different agenda than the one that is being presented?
Basically is it a storm in a teacup, or is he being made a scapegoat of sorts, or merely making a mountain out of a Moses?
In addition, it is more than apparent that the gay rights movement, which is just another pimple on the bony arm of the general Guyanese public, is showing its true colours. It is showing that its calls for tolerance are really mandates for intolerance. It isn’t looking for public spaces in which to be gay, but the elimination of public and even private spaces that reject homosexuality. It’s not gay rights that we are talking about, but gay mandates.
Before sounding the battle cry and gathering up arms, there is a call to have “hate speech” clearly defined. For even the briefest of moments let us not forget that freedom of speech is at the core of democracy in the free world. We all have a duty to uphold free speech as without it, democracy ceases to exist.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
At the risk of sounding or appearing moronic, permit me to ask the question, have there been any others, (elite or proletarian) beside Pastor McGarrell, and Bishop Edghill that have openly spoken out against homosexuality.
Currently, in economically starved Guyana, there are by far more pressing issues that require urgent attention, and again I do not feel that homosexuality and hate speech qualifies as one of them. Not by a long stretch of the human imagination. After all, the most recent demographic assessment and Sexual Profile data, a generous assessment, implies somewhere in the vicinity of 20% of Guyanese being either homosexual or bisexual.  This data is surrounded with a certain degree of skepticism, because the issue of sexuality is still very sensitive in Guyana and homosexual acts are still illegal there. As such caution is recommended on the side of admitted heterosexuality, since homosexuals will be less likely to admit to being this way inclined
Bishop Edghill described homosexuality as “destructive, unwholesome and unhealthy, seemingly basing his conclusions on the initial God-established function of the anus and its present relegation to a multitasking organ. He was certainly and constitutionally entitled to his opinion. By the same token, the advocacy group did not proffer any evidence or data to disprove the previous statement made. There was no call made by the group in question to carry out any special action, and the words used were in way designed to incite or intended to promote intolerance and hatred.
Article 146 (2) (d) of the Guyana Constitution addresses impositions “upon any person, institution, authority or political party from taking action or advancing, disseminating or supporting any idea, which may result in racial or ethnic divisions among the people of Guyana”. Article 146 (3) states clearly that “Freedom of expression in this article does not relate to hate speeches or other expressions, in whatever form, capable of exciting hostility or ill-will against any persons or class of persons”. (Guyana’s report to UPR on Part IV, G. ,Freedom of the Media, para. 3 makes reference to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting and the existence of a Code of Conduct agreed to by the media as measures taken to ensure that incitement to racial or religious hostility is not allowed.).
Chapter 8:01 in Sections 351 to 353 of the Criminal Offences Act makes it illegal for adult men to have consensual sexual relations in public or in private while Section 153 (1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, in part, stipulates the illegality of cross-dressing by men in public for “any improper purpose.”
Recently a resident of Cotton Field Village on the Essequibo Coast was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for the offence of buggery.
Is there a mixed message being sent or a mere play on words and actions?  Dating back eons, the Guyanese populace has posed no problems regarding tolerance for others of a different sexual orientation. They were known as who they were, they were free to walk the streets and talk, and life went on as usual. Can’t we return to that era and not create problems?
On a point of note, the selfsame Bible which is used in arenas of justice in swearing to ensure that the truth is told, and absolutely nothing but the truth, is now being disregarded when it comes to certain issues.  Man chooses and God loses.
Aluta Continua—the struggle continues.
Yvonne Sam

---

---