Está en la página 1de 5

Updated Context:

Sunday, July 12, 2009 … fully one year after the article below was penned!
(http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-to-oas-and-pancap-on-sexual.html )

Latest Context:

Sunday February 27, 2011 … almost three years after the article below was penned … the facts remain the same! Citizens
of CARICOM must demand more from their regional institutions/organizations! It is now being republished as a
supplement to “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality”

Response to OAS and PANCAP on Sexual Orientation,


and Decriminalizing Homosexuality and Prostitution

Initial Context:

The following letter was written to Guyana’s representative to the OAS on August 2, 2008. No response has
been received from the local office as at August 20, 2008. It is now submitted to the press on August 21, 2008,
with copies to PANCAP and the Attorneys-General of CARICOM. This document also represents Part 1 of a
response to PANCAP because of its decision in August 2008 to ignore the evidence and recommend the
decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution. Good law is based on good data and evidence, not wishful
thinking or artful duplicity.

August 21, 2008

******************************************************************************************

Mr. Dennis Moses


OAS Representative
Guyana Office

Dear Mr. Moses,

As a citizen of a member-country of the OAS, it is with some concern that I viewed the adoption of the
resolution on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" cited below at the OAS' fourth plenary
session held on June 3, 2008. The implications for adoption are enormous, and noticeably injurious to the
national ethos of member states.

It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have
begun to see this resolution as a "victory" for their respective communities.

It is very surprising that the debate at the OAS Secretariat, and its outcome, took place largely outside the
knowledge of many citizens of its respective nations. The strange, even illegal, circumstances that operated to
completely sideline submissions or contributions by the church and/or opposing organizations and citizens is
adequately summarized in the report by the World Congress of Families at
http://www.profam.org/press/wcf.pr.080620.htm
In that Press Release, two lines stand out: “… 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….”

To what end?

I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the
democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.
It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against
persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This
confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the
Controversy!”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially
frame my objections:

“.... 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 ....”

None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution.

In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal,
medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the
social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the "resources allocated
in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources."

I am convinced, however, that the obvious departure from responsible judgement on the part of the OAS is due
solely on its members, and the Secretariat, not being informed on the substantial amount of information to the
contrary.
The sociological evidence against the adoption or implementation of the resolution is substantial, and I offer
below a short introduction for your immediate perusal. The eight articles are, in the main, taken from Regent
University's “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" law review series. There are others. My specific requests in
writing to you on this occasion follow immediately after.

1. "EDITOR’S NOTE": Regent University's "Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" Law Review Series. (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )

“.... We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us
out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they
speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing ....”

“.... Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been
published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people
may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people
may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are
nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr.
George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina
School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of
Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on....”

“.... We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected
prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material
that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to
discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children ....”

2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …

“.... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to
know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the
American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed
to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that
homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of
pedophilia....”

3. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):

“.... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a
rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with
children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I,
83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s law review). Homosexual leaders
repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a
shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual
community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent....”
4. “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, by Steve Baldwin, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 267 (2002);
(http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc )

5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )

6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc )

THIS PARTICULAR LAW REVIEW IS IMPORTANT, SINCE IN ITS "HIDING DIRTY LAUNDRY"
SECTION, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE RATES OF VIOLENCE WITHIN THE LGBT
COMMUNITY IS VASTLY HIGHER THAN ANY IT EXPERIENCES FROM GROUPS WITHOUT.
QUITE SIMPLY, IT REFLECTS A PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER MANIFESTING ITSELF

8. “Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002) ; (


http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc )

9. “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political
Correctness!”, by Ben Kaufman; 14 Regent U.L. Rev. 423; 2002 (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ).

Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you
with duly referenced alternative sites.

My specific requests are:

1. That you communicate my concern as a citizen of a member state of the OAS, and a copy of this e-mail,
to the representative of every country present at the fourth session as a matter of urgency.

2. That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that
I, as a citizen of a member state, or organizations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that
my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session
BFORE the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.

3. I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before
the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and
objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are
prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission should the need arise.

4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda
from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.
5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said
resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction
of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to
the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this
resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams
Georgetown
Guyana
August 1, 2008

E-mail: RogerWilli@Yahoo.com

Cc:
The Guyana Council of Churches
The Georgetown Ministers’ Fellowship
The Guyana Evangelical Fellowship
Minister/Ministry of Human Services and Social Security in Guyana
The Trade Union Movement in Guyana
The Head, Guyana Teachers’ Union
The Caribbean Conference of Churches
The Evangelical Association of the Caribbean
The World Evangelical Alliance
The Pentecostal Assemblies of the West Indies
The Secretary General, CARICOM
All political parties in Guyana
The Caribbean media
The country-representatives of all member states of the OAS
The Permanent Representatives/Missions of all member states of the OAS

También podría gustarte