Seon Clarke, Seyon Persaud, Anthony Bess, Joshua Peters and Leon Conway
Source:
Alternet
By Antoine Craigwell
In recent times, it seems that those occasions when a 40th anniversary is celebrated, that as a milestone event, it has taken on a greater significance beyond, as the saying goes, “life begins at 40.” The Indian High Court ruled in its landmark decision in June 2009 that being homosexual is not a crime and that the law, Section 337, imposed by the British in 1861 during colonial rule, was itself antithetical to the Indian Constitution. Around the world, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community was celebrating and commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which occurred in Greenwich Village in New York City.
It is on the eve of the celebration of Guyana’s 40th Anniversary as a republic, that Quincy McEwan, Seon Clarke, Joseph Fraser, Seyon Persaud, and the
Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination filed suit in the Supreme Court to have Section 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02, declared as irrational, discriminatory, undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. In effect, they have issued a challenge to the Guyana’s colonial era laws.
Between Feb 6 and 7, 2009, seven men: Anthony Bess, Fraser, Joshua Peters, Persaud, Mc Ewan, Clarke, and Leon Conway were arrested for wearing women’s clothing. According to a Feb 10, 2009 article in the Stabroek News, Bess, Fraser, Peters and Persaud pleaded guilty, and Mc Ewan, Clarke and Conway pleaded not guilty to the charge.
But, the case now before the Guyana Supreme Court is one that reaches deep into the country’s history and culture, and extends to other aspects of the country’s constitution. It challenges the cross-dressing law, which the plaintiffs contend is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and on the international scene, has precedence. As discriminatory, the law the men violated by dressing in women’s clothing also prohibits women from wearing men’s clothing. As unconstitutional, with Guyana’s independence from the British in 1966, and with a revised 1980 Constitution, there are specific sections that prohibit violations of the rights of any of the country’s citizens and provides for the guarantee and protection of basic rights, such as, gender, race, ethnic origin, and expression of religion.
But, unless the Court abjures jurisdiction, deferring instead to a higher court, it is stepping into the stalled or abandoned national debate on the issue of recognizing that being gay is just as much a right, a human right, to breathe the same air and to have the same blood coursing through the veins of those who are aware of their sexual orientation and accept themselves. It has to make a clear statement on the separation of church and state –especially to the influential conservative religious lobby: the Christians, Hindus and Muslims, who for their own reasons, became unlikely allies to oppose passage of legislation granting protection to gays and lesbians.
According to an article published on Feb 23, 2010 in the
Stabroek News, as well as seeking declarations, reliefs, and damages, the plaintiffs want the Court to declare that the Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson, who told the men during the course of the hearing, on Feb 9, 2009 that they must attend church and give their lives to Christ, was improperly influenced by irrelevant considerations, discriminated against them on the basis of religion and violated a fundamental right of Guyana as a secular state in breach of Articles 1, 40, 145 and 149(1) of the Constitution.
“Unless the wide-ranging constitutional reforms conducted in 2001 and 2003 are to be dismissed as pure window-dressing, then the emphasis placed on non-discrimination during that process should guide the High Court to interpret the expanded equality rights generously in order to protect one of our society’s most marginalized groups,” said Arif Bulkan, one of the Guyanese attorneys assisting with the case, in a Feb 23, 2010 article in
Kaiteur News.
With the Indian High Court decision, there was a mixture of jubilation from the Indian LGBT community and from advocates for the rights of all of the country’s citizens; there were, as well derision and condemnation from the Christian denominations and other groups who have been blinded by religious indoctrination. Suffice it to say, the Indian government issued a statement saying they would not oppose or make any move against the High Court decision; that means the government saw sense and recognized its own constitution.
Nevertheless, beyond recognizing its own constitution, the Indian government, which still carries vestiges of the colonial British rule, was recognizing the country’s culture, which ran deeper and predated the colonialist. When the High Court issued its ruling, two commentators with the London Guardian offered their views: Balaji Ravichandran, in the Jul 2, edition of the newspapers, wrote: “The importance of this verdict cannot be understated. This is the first time that an Indian court has gone on record to say that sexual minorities are not second-class citizens, and that they cannot be discriminated against…However, for decades, the police and sometimes society at large used the law as an excuse to persecute gay men and women, who were harassed, blackmailed, detained or raped, unable to seek any protection or justice from the law. In addition, the law was also a significant impediment to fighting HIV/Aids among sexual minorities.”
Image via Wikipedia
RSS feed
Join our page
