THE GOVERNMENT OF GUYANA SHOULD NOT

VOTE TO RESTORE THE REFERENCE TO

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE UN RESOLUTION ON UNLAWFUL KILLINGS
Dear Editor,
 
How far will Joel Simpson, Vidyaratha Kissoon and Antoine Craigwell go to fool the government and people of Guyana?

We last addressed that question in the online article “The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana” (
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-Case-Against-Cross-Dressing-or-Transgender-ism-in-Guyana-UPDATED  ). As expected,
no effective rebuttal was received. The article has been copied to Guyana’s Attorney-General.
 
And now comes Simpson’s and Kissoon’s letter (SN 12/15/10) captioned “The Government of Guyana should Vote to Restore the
Reference to Sexual Orientation in the UN Resolution on Unlawful Killings ) ... and the online comments to that article are revealing.
Gay-rights activists bring the same tired arguments once again ... but more and more Caribbean governments are finally becoming
aware of the deception being peddled to them, and this time we have active evidence of the duplicitous role that sasod is playing to
undermine and influence the position of the government of Guyana!
 
Simpson et al forget to mention that it was the Bahamanian government that sponsored a resolution last month that sponsored the
previous amendment to reject the inclusion, and that the arguments sused till hold good for Guyana and other CARICOM states.
Bahamanian Permanent Secretary Dr Patricia Rodgers said the concept of gender identity is not universally accepted in international
human rights law. "The prevailing view in international law is that discrimination and fundamental freedoms are based on sex (not
sexual orientation), as well as race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed.
 
The Bahamanian government is essentially right, and their choice of diplomatic language admirable. We had in the past circulated
the detail and references in the online article "The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality" to the
Attorneys-General of the Caribbean and the OAS-states, as we will for this one. The arguments still apply to considerations of the
artificial construct called "sexual orientation".
 
We live in a binary world, and the tragedy of trying to "engineer' or "invent" another sex other than 'male" or "female" illustrates
raging psycho-sexual delusion. The depth of deception (the gay-rights movement is founded on a series of humongous hoaxes) is
apparent when the articles "Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria ”
(http://law.bepress.com/cgi/vie... ) and "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy " by Ty Clevenger. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241
(2002) (http://www.thepurplepamphlet.c... ) are read … and re-read! A psycho-sexual or mental disorder, if given the space to
consider itself "normal", will always seek to impose its madness on society. This is clearly illustrated when one assesses that
veritable carnage of violence inherent in the gay community when Judith Reisman’s excerpt "Hiding Dirty Laundry" in the online
article "The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality"! The current laws exist for good, sound, social,
legal, medical, moral and personal reasons.
 
Simpson et at have used the 'human rights' argument before, and have been shown to have failed thereby. Again, lawyer Roger J.
Magnuson ("Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!") would go on:
 
"... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human
rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from
discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights
advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.
 
... The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual
behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests
represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in
extraordinary circumstances.
 
To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:
(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination
(2) ... based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational;
(3)... causing substantial injury
(4)... to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status
(5)... which has no element of moral fault ..."
 
Gay-rights as “human rights” fail comprehensively on these criteria. An astonishing amount of secular research and evidence
supports the Guyanaese, Bahamanian and CARCOM positions, but gay-militancy thrives on the fact that ordinary citizens would
rather not read about the "alternative deathstyle" that "sexual orientation" offers!
 
So, how does the US’s position, given the tonnage of evidence, now change?
 
In the end, Simpson's associate in writing the letter above (Vidyaratha Kissoon), becomes the poster child for the effort by the LGBT
community and the UN to subvert sovereignty and the national consultative process worldwide on the issue of "gay rights". In the
process of participating in one of the UN's notorious "side-events", the entire process of national consultation is rendered void, and
the UN joins the USA in a perplexing attack against the evidence of its scientists. The following illustrations tell their own story:
 
Example 1: We pointed out at page 3 of the online article "The Case for Corporal Punishment in Guyana II"
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519228/The-Case-for-Corporal-Punishment-In-Guyana-II  ) that the tendency by the UN to
encourage special-interest groups to participate in discussions ABOVE and BEYOND the involvement of national governments was ...
unprincipled and dangerous.
 
Example 2: It is now a matter of record that Guyanese Vidyaratha Kissoon participated in one such "side event" which influenced
the US's position. Readers can scan the last line of the online article " USA reintroduces sexual orientation to UN anti-violence
resolution" (http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2010/12/video-usa-reintroduces-sexual.html  ) of Saturday December 11, 2010 to see
why Kissoon can so blithely "advise" the Guyanese government on this issue. The modus operandi used in these cases is ...
illuminating.
 
We made the point in the online article "Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation, and Decriminalizing
Homosexuality and Prostitution ' (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-and-pancap-on-sexual.html  ) that
"... According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the
resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input….”
 
Example 3: The "advice" offered by Kissoon flies in the face of the evidence offered to "The Case Against Pancap and the
Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-
Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality   ), rendering the action by the current Democratic-administration in the USA all the more
perplexing.
 
We have an astonishing, but predictable, conglomeration of issues:
 
-  "Side-Events" at the UN that have no place in ethical or logical conduct because they exclude the opposing view.
-  An administration openly opposed to the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the USA
-  A UN-organization committed to foisting the idea of "gay-rights' on its members, in spite of the evidence!
-  An attempt by activist judges in the USA to subvert the will of millions of Californians in the USA that voted for Proposition 8,
maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman!
-  An attempt by Simpson and Kissoon to circumvent the process of national consultation by engaging in the nefarious practice
outlined at page 3 of "The Case for Corporal Punishment in Guyana II" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519228/The-Case-for-
Corporal-Punishment-In-Guyana-II  )
 
The inevitable end of Simpson's/Kissoon's representations are clear! The Sasod position should be rejected out of hand by Guyana's
administration.

I sense that the initial evidence above will ensure unanimity with the Opposition without any difficulty!
 
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams