Dear Editor,
The recent (2018/11/13) ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) pertaining to the issue of cross dressing in Guyana is indicative of the trajectory of homosexuality in this nation. The masquerade has to stop! The inconspicuously obvious is hiding in plain sight!
SASOD and many sister organisations are riding the wave of human rights as they forward their advocacy against discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation. The not so obvious glaring fact, is that they are not dealing with sexual orientation in its widest sense- these folks and their supporters are, in essence, agitating for the legitimisation of same sex relationships; period! Consider the following:
The laws of any society are intended to protect the citizenry. During SASOD’s press conference to inform the nation of the relevant CCJ ruling, a most prominent local senior counsel alluded to the archaic nature of sections of the constitution which pertain to cross dressing and homosexuality. What this learned individual and many in the legal fraternity is failing to address, is how these “antiquated” laws ended up on the books. I began this paragraph, by highlighting the fundamental utility of the law.
So, if homosexuality is not serendipitously prohibited by the constitution, why is there an overwhelming effort to have it removed, while nothing is said about repealing the articles relating to incest, bestiality and other deviant sexual behaviour which are injurious to society? The answer is obvious. SASOD and their attorneys are quite aware of the grave potential societal dangers of incest, bestiality, homosexuality (particularly man to man) and other deviant sexual orientations. Hence, this facade about advocacy against discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation, is nothing but a smoke screen intended to hide the real agenda of SASOD–to promote and legitimise buggery. Had it not been so, there would have been equal and parallel attention given to the repealing of sections of the constitution which criminalise incest and bestiality. Aren’t these sexual orientations also?
Sincerely,
Errol London (Jr)
