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

Columbia University professor Dr Robert Spitzer Retracts Infamous ‘Ex-Gay’ Study

Retired psychiatrist and Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer has retracted a much-criticized 2001 study that has been used for years by anti-gay activists to buttress their claims that gay men and lesbians can be “cured” of their homosexuality through therapy.

In the controversial study, Spitzer (photo) claimed that some “highly motivated” LGBT people could become straight. His retraction came in an article about the fringe “ex-gay” movement in the American Prospect. In an interview, Spitzer asked the author, Gabriel Arana, to print a retraction of the 2001 study so that he “wouldn’t have to worry about it anymore.”

Since its publication, the study has been one of the major weapons wielded by anti-gay groups, which frequently cite it as “proof” that LGBT people choose to be gay and can thus change their sexual orientation. At the heart of this argument is the belief that homosexuality is an unnatural deviation from normal sexual development, a form of mental disorder.

The ex-gay movement, according to Arana, “has relied on the Spitzer study as the single piece of objective evidence that therapy can work.”

Ironically, Spitzer, who is now 80, was one of the psychiatrists who pushed the American Psychiatric Association to stop classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, a step the organization took in 1973. His 2001 study came as a shock and disappointment to many, and it received a storm of criticism over its suspect methodology and design.

Participants had been referred to Spitzer by ex-gay therapy practitioner groups like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and Exodus International. Their claims were self-reported, and Spitzer did not compare participants to a control group. Yesterday, Spitzer told Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, that he “has regret for what he now considers to be errant interpretations” of study participants’ reports. He also said that he had “second thoughts” about the study and now believes that “his conclusions don’t hold water.”

“I actually had great difficulty finding participants,” Spitzer told Arana in the American Prospect. “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think [Joseph] Nicolosi would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.” (Nicolosi is a clinical psychologist who practiced ex-gay therapy and helped found NARTH.)

Ex-gay therapy, also known as “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, has been widely discredited by the scientific community. Most strikingly, in 2006, the American Psychological Association (APA) stated: “There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.” The APA added, “Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”

Since his study’s publication, Spitzer has tried to make it clear that he didn’t want it used to justify discrimination against the LGBT community, and he emphasized that he did not think that most LGBT people could become heterosexual. Nevertheless, the study became a major part of the anti-gay movement’s arsenal, with claims that here, at last, was “proof” that “all” gay people could become straight through prayer or therapy. Spitzer attempted to point out over the years that such change was either highly unlikely or that anti-gay organizations had misused his research.

It’s not the first time anti-gay groups have used suspect studies or misused legitimate ones to further anti-LGBT sentiment.

In January, Seton Hall professor Theodora Sirota issued a statement taking NARTH’s Rick Fitzgibbons to task for using one of her studies to oppose adoption by same-sex couples. Sirota said that no conclusions about LGBT parents or the “fitness” of LGBT parents can be drawn from her findings. Fitzgibbons has yet to correct his own article or remove the Sirota citation from it

Several other legitimate researchers have publicly asked anti-gay organizations stop distorting their research. Now, with Spitzer’s on-the-record retraction, it remains to be seen whether they will stop using his 2001 study to justify their claims.

Don’t hold your breath.

'Jamaicans For Justice doing church's job' — says Rev Al Miller

Restorative advocate and anti gay pastor Reverend Al Miller is at it again folks this time in a fit of jealousy it seems on the face of it he has come out to say that the goodly Jamaicans For Justice, JFJ is doing the church's job and if one reads the Jamaica observer report on the issue he sounds as if he is saying the JFJ is not fit to do it and it should be him and his church or the church in general. 


Of course he always seems to want to grab attention to himself and the media responds by saying out of the park statements and positions at times, here I would have thought that he would have wanted to have joined the goodly folks at JFJ instead of complaining that they are doing the church's job, if this is not a theocratic thinking move on his part then I do not know what is. Similarly we saw the gentleman also in another forum recently as reported on faith based organizations where he also hinted that they are not morally qualified to be advocating for HIV/AIDS interventions etc.

As in a Gleaner story REPRESENTATIVES OF UNAIDS recently were faced with the dilemma of how to enlist the support of local faith-based organisations (FBOs) in the HIV/AIDS prevention campaign without violating the institutions' doctrinal principles. A major stumbling block, which was identified in a recent consultation between church leaders and UNAIDS officials, is the traditional association of the HIV/AIDS messaging with gay-rights issues.
The views of the clerics are summed up in the comments by churchman Major Richard Cooke: "The perception is that the homosexuals have used AIDS to push their agenda. Allow the Church to speak to the church. When we feel that our help is linked to a gay agenda we do not want to be a part of it." The Rev Al Miller echoed similar sentiments: "Perception becomes reality. Changing the face of the historical sellers of the message of HIV prevention is an important and strategic move. We will, therefore, have to identify faces that can have broader appeal in order for us to be successful."

In other words, the clerics are suggesting that the gay-rights agenda has stigmatised the HIV/AIDS prevention programme, and, consequently, has alienated the religious community.

Ironic twist

This is an ironic twist, as it is the removal of stigma and discrimination from the HIV/AIDS prevention programme that is the goal of the local and international health-advocacy agencies. In fact, that was the purpose of the recent consultation between representatives of UNAIDS and FBOs. The discussions were informed by the findings of a Ministry of Health (MOH)-commissioned study of leaders of FBOs about the level of stigma and discrimination towards the most-at-risk populations (MARPs) in their organisations, including gay men, sex workers, prisoners and people living with HIV (PLHIV).

The study, which is based on a survey of 41 FBO leaders in 35 denominations across eight parishes, found that senior clerics considered it their "responsibility to uphold moral values and hold society accountable to those values." The findings continued: "Issues of faith and belief go deep and most FBOs have defined principles to which they adhere and which they consider divine and, therefore, are not open to discussion. A related finding is the faulty association of HIV/AIDS with sexual promiscuity (which is not always the case) by some church leaders and congregations.

Al Miller points to the dilemma: "If we are going to solve the problem, we cannot create another problem in order to solve it. We have to separate the issues of stigma and acceptance of behaviour. You have to be careful that you are not selling that 'this is good, this is normal, this is an acceptable lifestyle'."


more HERE from Gay Jamaica Watch


However with the JFJ matter here is the Observer report:

OUTSPOKEN Kingston pastor Reverend Al Miller yesterday criticised the church for allowing human rights groups to outdo it in the fight against injustice in the society.

Using local human rights body Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) as his reference, Miller said the church and not JFJ should be leading the charge

"Jamaicans for Justice are doing what the church ought to be doing. It is not their call [but] I thank God for them," the pastor told his congregants at Fellowship Tabernacle during the Easter Sunday service yesterday.

"It is us, it is us who are supposed to be out there, not Jamaicans for Justice," he argued.

Miller's remarks were made after the church offered up prayers for the family of 26-year-old Socrates Johnson who was fatally shot by the police on Clifton Road off Chisolm Avenue on Wednesday. The reverend said the family of the slain man, who are members of his church, were still trying to come to grips with his death. He said he, too, was still in shock as he had spoken with Johnson just an hour before his death.

According to reports from the Constabulary Communication Network, Johnson who is from an Upper Waltham Avenue, Kingston 11 address was fatally shot by the police at around three o'clock. The matter has been reported to the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and is being investigated by the Bureau of Special Investigations.

JFJ was among several civil organisations that mounted a peaceful protest outside the offices of the Ministry of National Security on Oxford Road about two weeks ago, to register its concerns about the increasing number of police killings across the island. Twenty-nine persons were killed by police during controversial operations last month, triggering outrage from citizens, JFJ and Amnesty International. The incidents also arrested the attention of Security Minister Peter Bunting.

In a discussion with the Jamaica Observer following the sermon yesterday, Miller registered his own infuriation.

"The ones who are charged with the responsibility for protecting us, cannot be the ones who are destroying us. Something is wrong," said Miller.

He made it clear, however, that he was not bashing the security forces for doing their job and was keen to point out that extrajudicial killing was just one area of injustice in the society.

"I am not into police bashing, because the police have a difficult task in a difficult society because of what we have allowed to develop," he said. "But at the same time, they cannot do right wrongly and we cannot encourage that."

The "we" he referred to extends to the wider society, but Miller, who headed the National Transformation Programme under the previous government, said it was the church's responsibility to fight injustice.

"The issue of justice is one of the main responsibilities of the church, because justice is one of the major pillars of society and because of our commitment to people and particularly to the poor and to the oppressed, we have to stand up and be a voice for justice [and] for truth," he told the Observer.

"We must be prepared to more than just talk about it or feel bad about it, we must be prepared to act," the reverend said.

"The churches are playing a fantastic role in many areas of society, but certainly in the area of justice, there is a lot more that needs to be done. There should be a stronger and more consistent voice against every form of injustice wherever it pushes up it's head," added Miller.