Trans woman barred from entering Georgetown Magistrate’s Court ..............

Source

also see this previous entry: Previously denied transgender claimant in Guyanese court case allowed in court 

NICHOLAS Kissoon known as ‘Beyonce’ was slated to appear at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday to answer charges of abusive language and attempted suicide, however she could not make it pass the gate.

The transgender woman was wearing a polka dot, cap-sleeved dress but was told by a police officer at the gate that she cannot enter the compound after he searched her bag. Kissoon told Guyana Chronicle that she was scheduled to appear in Court 6 and alleged that the police rank “pushed” her out.

“When I entered the court yard, the officer asked me to search my bag. I allowed him to search my bag and then he told me that I can’t come into the court and he pushed me out of the court yard,” Kissoon related.

The charges stemmed from an incident which occurred on April 27, 2017 at the Georgetown Prison, following an altercation between Kissoon and a female prison officer. On that day, Kissoon said she visited the prison to take “support” for a family member and got into an argument with the female officer at the gate.

“She cuss me first so I cuss her back and they took me to Brickdam Police Station,” Kissoon said as she noted that while at the police station, she was beaten by police ranks.

“They took me to the [Brickdam Police] station to have a seat; they beat me and start discriminating my lifestyle I live…they are finding a lot of charge because they lash me to my head and bust it,” the trans woman related.

As it relates to the issue of attempted suicide, Kissoon said that it is a “trumped-up” charge and she has no knowledge as to why the police would charge her with such an offence.

“I have no knowledge about that, that’s a false allegation made against me by the police.”

CROSS-DRESSING RULE

THE Court of Appeal in February 2017, upheld a 2013 ruling by former Chief Justice, Ian Chang that cross-dressing is not a crime, once not done for “improper purposes”.

In 2010, a group of transgender women had asked the Supreme Court to strike down laws that left them open to arrest following a police crackdown the year before on male cross-dressers. While Chang’s subsequent ruling allowed for men to dress in women’s clothing, it did not say what constituted “improper purpose”, which led to concerns about interpretation. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, seeking clarity on what constitutes “improper purpose”.

However, Chancellor of the Judiciary at the time, Carl Singh, Justice, Yvonne Cummings-Edwards, and High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, unanimously upheld the decision made by Justice Chang in 2013. Singh reasoned that an improper purpose would be a man dressing as a woman, and using this female image to solicit services from a taxi driver, after which he robs the driver.

AMBIGUITY IN RULING

Meanwhile, when contacted by Guyana Chronicle on Tuesday for a comment on the Kissoon issue, Founder and Co-Chairperson of the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) in Guyana, Joel Simpson alluded to the ambiguity in the court’s ruling on the issue of cross-dressing.

“Cross dressing is not a crime unless it’s for improper purpose. The court’s security are taking upon themselves to bar transgender persons from entering the court’s compound.

“Up to now, although a few months has passed, there has not been a written decision why the cross dressing matter was dismissed at the Appeal Court,” Simpson lamented.

With “improper purposes” not being clearly defined, the then Chancellor had explained that it is not for the court to define what improper is, since Parliament has not done so. The Summary Jurisdiction Act, which criminalised men and women presenting themselves in attire of the opposite sex, came into effect in 1893.

This means, too, that when cases related to cross-dressing arise in the court, interpretation of the word “improper” will be determined by the magistrate hearing that case.

Previously denied transgender claimant in Guyanese court case allowed in court

In a closely watched case transgender in Guyana a new development has come to the fore, also see a previous entry as prepared by SASOD: Cross-Dressing Appeal Case for Judgment in 2017 

Starbroek News carried a more balanced nuance to the matter. After coming under fire in the past by members and supporters of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community for not allowing transgender persons to enter his courtroom while cross-dressed, Magistrate Dylon Bess yesterday appeared to back down from his previous stand.

The complainant, Petronella (second from right) in conversation with SASOD Director Joel Simpson and other supporters.

“Today we saw a number of transgender women presenting completely in female attire. Twinkle was in a dress. Some of them were dressed, I would say in a unisex manner—pants and t-shirt—but still wearing long hair, earrings and makeup in some instances and so on [and] were allowed to enter court,” Joel Simpson, Managing Director of the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) commented yesterday.

Simpson, along with members of Guyana Trans United (GTU), SASOD and the Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) were present at the Georgetown Magistrates Court for the hearing of Petronella, born Ronell Trotman, who is the virtual complainant in an assault case with a Jamoul Franklin.

According to a statement sent out by the three groups, Petronella was allegedly physically assaulted on January 26, 2017 by an acquaintance and the matter was reported to the Brickdam police station. It went on to state that on January 31, she made an appearance at the city court dressed in female attire but Magistrate Bess had refused to address the matter. 

It was further stated that the magistrate asked that on Petronella’s return to court on the next occasion, she do so dressed in pants and a shirt and without earrings. Failing to do so would result in her being dealt with accordingly.

At yesterday’s court hearing, Petronella wore unisex clothing—a pair of jeans and t-shirt. Her alleged assailant was granted a reduction in bail from $50,000 to $40,000 and the matter was adjourned to February 27 for commencement of trial.

Simpson noted that there were three incidents in March, 2016, involving transgender women where Magistrate Bess denied them the opportunity to enter the courtroom. “We don’t think it’s enough to only facilitate and tolerate access when there’s media attention or when activists are in attendance in court. Magistrate Bess needs to understand that the Guyana constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law for all persons regardless of who you are,” Simpson said.

In April, 2016, the LGBT community held a talk in observance of International Transgender day of Visibility during which this very issue was addressed.

At the talk, organised by SASOD and the USAID’s Advancing Partners and Communities (APC) Guyana Project, it was noted that the litigant, David Bissoon, known as “Twinkle,” had been disallowed from entering Magistrate Bess’ courtroom on three separate occasions, and on the third occurrence, she, along with other members of the LGBT community took to the streets to protest what is purported to be a discriminatory stance taken by the magistrate. The matter was subsequently dismissed.

Simpson had agreed that the issue goes deeper than simply a matter of cross-dressing. For him, the deeper issue is the denial of a more specific kind of access to trans-people, whom he said tend to face a high degree of hate crimes and violence. “…Now we have a situation where an officer of the court is saying you can’t come to court as who you are. For me, the issue there is not even about cross-dressing, it’s about accessing justice.”

The Demarara Wave seemed to take a different spin on the case: 

Transgender woman appears in ‘unisex’ clothing at Court after warned by Magistrate 

Petronella was physically assaulted by a known acquaintance last year. The matter was reported at the Brickdam Police Station and the perpetrator was charged for assault.

The case was heard before Bess on January 31, but according to Petronella, she was admonished for attending court dressed in female attire, consistent with her gender identity.

“I am only aware of two types of genders; that is male and female. I don’t know about any transgender,” Magistrate Bess reportedly told Petronella in January.

He reportedly admonished Petronella that she must attend his court on the next scheduled date (February 7) dressed in pants, a shirt and without any earrings. Petronella complied today with the request.

Petronella had said Bess warned if she failed to comply with his instructions, he will deal with her accordingly.

Cross-Dressing Appeal Case for Judgment in 2017

The case McEwan, Clarke, Fraser, Persaud and SASOD versus Attorney General of Guyana was heard on Friday, November 18, 2016 before Guyana’s Court of Appeal. The hearing was presided over by Chancellor of the Judiciary Carl Singh, Chief Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice Brassington Reynolds. 

Gulliver McEwan, the first-named appellant, other representatives of the Guyana Trans United (GTU) and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) were also present at the hearing.

The Chancellor noted that the Court had received extensive submissions from both the appellants and the state, which did not require rehashing orally. However, Dr Bulkan, counsel for the appellants, noted that there were two issues in the state’s submissions that were raised for the first time and to which he would like to respond. He was permitted to address these issues, but after doing so the Court indicated that these new submissions should be recorded in writing, and both parties were given four weeks to present their further written submissions to the court.

The Court questioned counsel for the appellants on their contention that the law was uncertain, asking whether it was not possible for a Magistrate to define the term ‘improper purposes’ on a case by case basis by reference to its dictionary meaning. Dr Bulkan responded that permitting this would offend the requirement of the rule of law, since penal statutes had to be defined with sufficient clarity to give citizens prospective notice of how to conduct themselves. 

He pointed out that even if a person was eventually acquitted by a Magistrate, the fact of being charged and subjected to the state’s coercive powers would have already resulted in violations of their fundamental rights. He added that the term ‘improper purpose’ had no boundaries whatever, and thus gave police unfettered discretion in enforcing the law.

University of the West Indies' Faculties of Laws Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) co-coordinator, Dr. Arif Bulkan, and Litigation Specialist, Westmin James, in discussion after the Court of Appeal hearing with Managing Director, Joel Simpson, and Advocacy and Communications Officer, Schemel Patrick.

In his response, Counsel for the state, Kamal Ramkarran, insisted that since the appellants had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate, they were barred from bringing this constitutional action. He added that the case was hypothetical and academic and should be thrown out. Mr Ramkarran further stated that in order to bring a constitutional claim a person had to allege a past, present or future breach of their rights, whereas the appellants provided no evidence that they were likely to be charged in the future. Ramkarran stated that there are far more serious crimes deserving of a constitutional challenge, “like the buggery law”. 

He pointed out that a conviction for cross-dressing is punishable by only $15,000, whereas a conviction for buggery carries life imprisonment. He concluded by saying that to charge the police would have to peep in someone's room to see them committing the act, at which point the court indicated that it was obliged to consider the case before it

This case was initially filed in February 2010, following the widely reported arrests and convictions of seven trans persons for the 1893 summary offence of ‘being a man’ and wearing ‘female’ attire in a public way or public place, for an improper purpose.’ Four of the convicted persons filed this action, along with SASOD, after approaching the Faculty of Law UWI Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP) for legal advice. Thereafter, with the assistance of U-RAP and local counsel, a constitutional challenge to the cross-dressing law was filed.

Even since the case was filed in February 2010, transgender persons are overpoliced, underprotected and have suffered physically and mentally because of the vagueness of the cross-dressing law in Guyana. The McEwan case argues that the archaic cross-dressing law, found in section 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act 1893, is inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana. It also argues that the conduct of the Chief Magistrate, who told the individual appellants that they were confused about their sexuality and should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, was also not consistent with the Guyana Constitution.

The legal team for the appellants included Mr. Nigel Hughes, Dr. Arif Bulkan, and Mr. Gino Persaud.

The Court of Appeal is expected to set a date for judgement in early 2017 after both sides have presented their further written submissions.

Haiti, The Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination & related forms of Intolerance, other countries cowardice

By Tiffany Barry

Tiffany Barry is the Social Change Coordinator at the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), based in Georgetown, Guyana.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen passed by France’s National Constituent Assembly in 1789 is one of the cornerstone documents in the history of human rights. It is the philosophy of this document declaring in essence that all people are created free and equal and have the right to life, liberty, and free will which guided the Haitian revolutionaries as they held steadfast to this ideology which eventually led to the creation of the first black state in the Western hemisphere, Haiti, on January 1, 1804.

In the history of the Caribbean, Haiti has always been viewed as an inspiration and example, a leader despite its struggles, whose resilience as a nation and as a people continues to shine bright. Haiti continues to lead the way for its Caribbean counterparts as it prepares to host the 2015 General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) for the second time in 20 years. On June 25 of this year, Haiti also broke new ground, becoming the first Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member state to sign the Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination and related forms of Intolerance and the Inter-American Convention against all forms of Discrimination, without any reservations.

The signing of these two conventions are monumental because Haiti has once again shown leadership in the pursuit of ensuring the protection of the human rights of all its citizens, and signalling to all other Caribbean states that they are prepared to address the issues which may be seen as taboo and to take a stand for what is right and just. The only other Caribbean country to have signed on to any of the conventions is Antigua and Barbuda which only signed the Inter-American Agreement against Racism, Racial Discrimination and related forms of Intolerance in 2013.

By acceding to both human rights treaties, Haiti is signalling that the state is committed to protecting the rights of all its citizens from violence and discrimination based on age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, language, religion, cultural identity, political opinions, social origin, socio-economic status, educational level, disability, genetic trait, mental or physical health condition.

To date, no other Caribbean state has signed these conventions. Rather, some have all footnoted their reservations to the 2014 Resolution on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity and Expression” – a resolution which condemns all forms of discrimination, acts of violence and human rights violations based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. This is because in these Caribbean states, there are still laws maintained from the colonial era that criminalise same-sex activities between consenting adults in private, and in the peculiar case of Guyana, cross-dressing.

Recognising that all persons are entitled to the protection of their human rights regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity is an important step in protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people from human rights violations, and allows the community to live with dignity, without fear of targeted violence and discrimination which oftentimes results in them becoming a marginalized, vulnerable and impoverished group. President of Guyana, Donald Ramotar recently indicated that his administration will not demonstrate leadership in the protection of its LGBT citizens by removing laws which criminalise them because the majority of its citizens are not “ready” to recognise the human rights of LGBTI Guyanese. But world history teaches us that people are often never ready for progressive change. The world was not prepared for the signing of the Declaration on the Rights of Man, yet it was signed; the majority of the British and American public were not in favour of the Emancipation Declaration, yet it was delivered.

The OAS has over the years taken measures to ensure that the rights of LGBTI citizens throughout the hemisphere are recognized and protected and that discussions pertaining to the development of the region do not exclude the region’s sexual and gender minorities. This year’s OAS General Assembly amply themed “Development with Social Inclusion” held in Asuncion, Paraguay, in June, was an ample opportunity for our Caribbean leaders to show leadership and to break away from many of the old ideologies imposed upon us during the colonial era by proving that they are committed to inclusive development – development of and for all people – which is not possible if all its citizens are not provided with an equal platform to contribute to the development of the Americas.

Instead, many foreign ministers while being open to discussing the issues affecting its LGBTI citizens, and acknowledging that they should not suffer discrimination, fell short of demonstrating leadership to ensure that these sentiments become a reality. The resolution on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity and Expression” requires member states to eliminate barriers to equal access for LGBT persons with regards to political participation and other areas of public life as well as eliminate interference in their private lives; adopt public policies against discrimination that help prevent violence against LGBTI persons and ensure equal judicial protections for the victims of violence motivated by sexual orientation and/or gender identity; research and publish statistics on violence motivated by homophobia and transphobia; ensure adequate protection for human rights defenders; and ensure adequate protection for intersex people and to implement policies and procedures, as appropriate, to ensure the conformity of medical practices with recognized human rights standards. The resolution was passed with a record number of reservations by some Caribbean states namely: Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica and Suriname.

The overarching sentiments for footnoting there reservations to this resolution were that the concepts of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are not understood within these Caribbean states and that these nations embrace, or are “consulting” on, punitive laws, which therefore prohibits their endorsement of the resolution which commits states to take actions against violence and discrimination.

Participating in this year’s General Assembly provided an opportunity for SASOD to engage Caribbean foreign ministers and ambassadors to the OAS on issues hindering the advancement of human rights protection for LGBTI persons. Many of them were quite open to dialogue; in fact, the Foreign Minister of St. Lucia made it a priority to speak with civil society representatives from her country working for the protection of LGBTI persons there. The Foreign Minister of Belize approached our Caribbean contingent and engaged us in an hour-long conversation about the struggles of the region to recognize LGBTI citizens as equal and deserving of recognition and protection. In fact he included two other dignitaries from the Belizean delegation in the conversation to show that they are open to discussing the LGBTI issues. I was unable to engage the Guyanese delegation in any formal discussion. Guyana is pushing for Ambassador Bayney Karran to become OAS Assistant Secretary General when the post becomes vacant next year. But he is up against another Caribbean contender, Belize’s US Ambassador, Nestor Menez. LGBTI issues have become very prominent on the OAS agenda in the last seven years with annual resolutions on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” being passed by the General Assembly since 2008. This year, Commissioner Tracy Robinson from Jamaica, who is also the Rapporteur on the Rights of LGBTI Persons, became the Chair of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It would also be smart foreign policy for Guyana to be more open to dialogue on meaningful support – not just lip service – to LGBTI issues, both at home and at the OAS.

Today, political leaders of so-called independent states in the Caribbean continue to hold steadfast to some laws imposed upon us under colonialism. This contradiction begs several questions: Why are the minds of supposedly free people still being controlled by colonial ideology? Why are they so afraid to extend the fundamental principles that our foreparents fought so hard for to all our citizens? The time has come for all free men and women to release the shackles of mental slavery and to realize that as a region we will not develop fully if we keep excluding sections of our populations. The enjoyment of civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights should be extended to all Caribbean citizens, including sexual and gender minorities.

Guyanese President Ramotar also stated that he does not discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Other government ministers have also publicly expressed similar sentiments. However, the reason they are in office is to lead. They have an important role to play in creating, amending and repealing laws. Good, people-centred laws are created to protect citizens and promote equality. Why then is it so difficult to create laws that protect our LGBTI citizens? It is one thing to say “I am not homophobic” but it takes more than words to make this meaningful for LGBTI Guyanese. As the saying goes, talk is cheap.

As Guyana and the rest of the region begin to engage in post 2015 discussions as the way forward from the soon to be expired Millennium Development Goals in 2015, it should be noted that all talks about sustainable development will have to deal with how we include all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, socio-economic background, religion and other grounds. The 2014 OAS General Assembly on “Development with Social Inclusion” was clear that the region needs to adopt a rights-based approach to development. We cannot speak about eradicating poverty and promoting economic and social development if we continue to oppress segments of our population. By doing this we are demonstrating an unequal approach to poverty reduction and development. Moreover, in order to ensure the equal distribution of socio-economic development, we have to address causes of inequality, discrimination, violence and poverty. A good place to start is to address laws, policies and practices, which are discriminatory, and lead to the marginalization of our minority groups.

If we are free people capable of independent, rational thought, we would realize that holding on to oppressive laws and practices are counterproductive to our development. It is time for free people to emancipate our minds and reject all forms of oppression. This is what Haiti is doing by adopting the most inclusive human rights treaties, and ending institutional discrimination in law and policy.

Also see from SASOD's blogs: DECLARATION OF THE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRAVESTI, TRANSSEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND INTERSEX COALITION OF THE AMERICAS BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OAS

The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) on Government of Guyana UPR Consultations

The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) welcomes the commitment of the Guyana government to host consultations on issues related to matters of law reform on sexual orientation and gender identity, as part of its obligations to report back to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process on these and other recommendations by September 2012. 

However, we are disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary, Dr. Roger Luncheon, misled the Guyanese public that the focus of these consultations is on "decriminalization of same-sex unions," as reported by Demerara Waves. The Cabinet Secretary, as well as the Presidential Advisor on Governance and the cabinet sub-committee on governance, should fully well know that same-sex unions, or "gay marriage" as one newspaper headline has already indicated, are not the subject of the state' obligations which are presently being considered under Guyana' UPR.

We are disappointed that such a high-ranking government official would misuse, whether deliberately or unwittingly, the critical politics of language to whip up public hysteria with such snide references to fearful notions of "gay marriage" Having identified itself as the facilitators of this process, the government's actions raise questions as to whether its intentions to consult are genuine, and whether it can be trusted to lead this process. We therefore recommend a more inclusive framework which includes the parliamentary opposition and can also minimize partisan positions when these reforms reach the National Assembly.
Also troubling are Dr. Luncheon's statements that, quoting Demerara Waves,

"we have the remaining months of this year to conclude the consultations, summarise what comes from these consultations and to present those findings as they are grouped and formulated as the State's policy on these three matters." SASOD would like to make its position unequivocally clear, that consultation does not mean referendum, and reiterate our stated position that the Guyana constitution is the ultimate guide on matters of citizen participation in decision-making. As Article 13 states, "the principal objective of the political system is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State with particular emphasis on those areas of decision- making that directly affect their well-being."

The key stakeholders of this consultative process are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Guyanese citizens as these discriminatory laws affect our everyday lives and lived experiences. Our communities and organisations must therefore be able to manage and take centre stage in this process as these decisions affect our identities and citizenship and our views must be heavily weighted.
Guyana formally started its UPR process at the United Nations (UN) in 2010.

The UN Human Rights Council recommended that the state repeal all laws which discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. These include sections 351, 352 and 353 of the Criminal Law (Offences) Act Chapter 8:01 which penalize consensual forms of intimacy between adult men in private with prison sentences ranging from two years to life imprisonment, and section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02 which criminalises cross-dressing. After a targeted police crackdown in February 2009 where seven persons who were born biologically male were arrested for wearing female attire, four of those persons and SASOD filed a suit against the state challenging the constitutional validity of these discriminatory laws. The case is presently before the court where the Attorney General is representing the government in defence of these laws on which it now seeks to consult to determine its position.

ENDS

see a previous post on sister blog Gay Jamaica Watch 

Guyana seeks public opinion on controversial laws ..............

on the discussion and also this video of a television program as well:

Many are questioning locally when is our democracy going to at least have an open and honest discourse about homosexuality in general (apart from the consultations behind the scenes) and on buggery and the laws that punish consenting adults? When we see other Caribbean neighbours discussing issues far more maturely, such as school girl alleged coercion, St Lucia had a debate where homosexuality was suggested to be added as a curriculum subject in schools yet some years ago a book on our home economics curriculum that just mentioned homosexual relationships as a family unit alongside heterosexual ones nearly led to anarchy.

Let us also remember the 100 days has passed for this new administration and no sign of any look of a review as promised by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller save and except for one of her own in the form of Member of Parliament Damian Crawford who says it is unlikely that it will happen while poking fun at the idea of his own boss at a function, see more HERE on that including the video news clip from CVM TV.

Peace and tolerance

H

British diplomat admits UK’s historical responsibility for anti-gay laws

British High Commissioner Simon Bond speaks at an event yesterday to mark International Day Against Homophobia, with an image of Dr Robert Carr in the background. Carr, who died last week, is recognized for his fight to end discrimination against minority groups.

The British High Commissioner, Simon Bond, yesterday encouraged the government to make good on its commitment to hold consultations on the decriminalisation of sex between males, and other laws which discriminate against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people.

Bond’s call came with an acknowledgement that the British government bears historic responsibility for such legislation which has spawned discrimination against LGBT people.

He pointed to the British government’s efforts to end discrimination against the LGBT community, but said Britain, like almost every other country, used to have discriminatory legislation and practices against LGBT people until relatively recently.

“And those laws and attitudes, of course, were reflected in the way Britain administered its former colonies.
“So we clearly have some historical responsibility for the legislation that countries like Guyana inherited at independence,” Bond said.
He was speaking at an event held by the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), which has been leading calls for LGBT law reform.
Bond said it was shocking that 43 Commonwealth countries still criminalise homosexual behaviour.

The Government of Guyana committed at the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations in Geneva in May last year to “hold consultations on this issue over the next two years.”
“We encourage progress on that and an open and constructive debate,” Bond stated.

SASOD yesterday joined 50 countries around the world to celebrate International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), marking the anniversary of one of the most powerful steps in advancing human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people globally – the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness by the World Health Organization 21 years ago.
SASOD used the occasion to launch a documentary titled “My Wardrobe, My Right” which explores issues related to the criminalisation of cross-dressing in Guyana.

It captures the stories of two of the cross-dressers who were victims of Police crackdowns in February 2009, and also features views of SASOD and an attorney representing litigants who have filed a constitutional challenge against the country’s law which prohibit cross-dressing.
The goal of the documentary project, SASOD stated, is to create a more supportive socio-cultural environment for sexual and gender minorities through public education efforts which aim to mitigate stigma faced by these marginalised groups.
“It aims to create a supportive infrastructure by building a more enabling socio-cultural environment which encourages ordinary people to embrace these groups who are stigmatised because of sexual taboos and gender non-conformity,” SASOD declared.

Guyana’s laws criminalise cross-dressing. Section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02 makes an offence of ”being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in female attire, or being a woman, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in male attire… ”
“This antiquated piece of legislation dates back to the 19th century colonial period, but is still being selectively enforced today – in the 21st century,” SASOD stated.
In 2006, Ronell Trotman, better known as ‘Pertonella,’ a cross-dressing sex worker, was fined for vagrancy and wearing female attire; $5000 for each offence.

And then between February 6 and 10, 2009, police detained at least eight people, some of them twice, charging seven of them under section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02.
On February 19, 2010, four cross-dressers and SASOD filed a notice of motion before the Supreme Court of Judicature for redress claiming, among other relief, to have section 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02, invalidated as irrational, discriminatory, undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional.
The matter is before the High Court.

SASOD yesterday also launched the inaugural issue of its quarterly newsletter, “Spectrum Vibes,” which is dedicated to the life and work of the late Dr. Robert Carr, who passed away last week.
Dr. Carr was the director of advocacy and policy of the International Council of AIDS Service Organisations (ICASO), co-chair of the Global Forum on MSM and HIV (MSMGF), founder, co-chair and first executive director of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC), former executive director of Jamaica AIDS Support and former coordinator of the Graduate Studies Unit at the Caribbean Institute of Media and Communication (CARIMAC) University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, among many other affiliations.