– law should be repealed, SASOD says
The recent arrest and conviction of seven men for cross-dressing have prompted calls for the repeal of the colonial-era laws, which rights groups say are being used to selectively discriminate against transgender persons.
Acting Chief Magistrate Melissa Robertson is also being harshly criticised for her handling of the case, bringing into focus the need for more legal protections for sexual and gender minorities.
Joel Simpson, Co-Chair of the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), which is calling for the repeal of the law, told Stabroek News that it is being used by police to target transgender men. Although he noted that this is the first case the group has heard of in nearly three years, he said the arbitrary application of the law perpetuates discrimination.
While on the streets of Georgetown people cross-dress all the time across the spectrum of genders, according to Simpson, the enforcement of the law against it is only arbitrarily applied to working-class male to female transvestites. He warned that operation of the law gives the public the impression that there is a right to discriminate.
Simpson said outside of cross-dressing, there is pervasive discrimination at workplaces, where there have been cases of persons being sanctioned with warnings, withholding of promotions and even firings, on the basis of sexual orientation. “But nobody wants to take it public and try a test case in the courts because of the public nature of litigation, which would reinforce the discrimination,” he explained. “To deal with that you need new legislative protection and employment is a key area,” he added.
Human Services Minister Priya Manickchand has emerged as the government’s chief campaigner in the reform of the sexual offences laws. “I am concerned about any law that does not reflect the reality of the time,” she admitted, when asked about the selective enforcement of the law against cross-dressing. “But we have to take into consideration the desire of the people we make laws for and ensure the changes we make are met with the approval of the majority those laws seek to guide.”
Manickchand further said that while recommendations were received during the “Stamp It Out” consultations to review the sodomy laws to decriminalise consensual private relations, the campaign was focused on addressing non-consensual offences to strengthen protection against sexual violence.
Last Monday, seven men found in women’s clothing over the weekend were each ordered to pay a court fine of $7,500. In separate cases, Anthony Bess, Joseph Fraser, Joshua Peters and Seyon Persaud as well as Quincy Mc Ewan, Seon Clarke and Leon Conway were all fined for the charge of dressing in female’s attire. Ironically, the men claimed they were on their way to the National Cultural Centre to view the play Nothing to Laugh About, which pokes fun at cross-dressers.
The law they were charged under is set out in Section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02, which prescribes the sanctions against anyone “being a man, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in female attire; or being a women, in any public way or public place, for any improper purpose, appears in male attire…” The Section, which treats various offences mainly in relation to towns, also includes sanctions against discharging a cannon within 300 yards of dwelling house; beating or shaking a mat in a public place between 7am and 6pm; roller-skating on public roads; and flying kites in Georgetown and New Amsterdam (except for a portion of the beach between imaginary straight lines running due north from the bandstand on the Sea Wall and Vlissingen Road in the case of the former and the right bank of the Berbice River north of the bandstand on Esplanade, in the latter).
In a statement issued yesterday, SASOD dubbed the laws “archaic,” while pointing out that they have no victims other than those who are convicted of them. “It is past time for our government to rid the law books of such outdated, victimless offences,” it said in the statement, where it called for swift action. “Keeping on the books statutes that find illegality in practices where no reasonable or right-thinking person would find any undermines the very rule of law itself and public respect for its authority.”
SASOD added that it is not an accident when on occasion the laws are arbitrarily invoked they disproportionately affect the poor and the powerless. It cited a common trend of “cross-dressing” in local stage plays to ridicule homosexuals and questioned whether these are not subject to the application of the law because they have more socio-economic power than the working class. SASOD said by leaving magistrates wide discretion to decide when cross-dressing is for “an improper purpose,” the law leaves itself open to abuse based on personal and religious prejudices. In this regard, the group noted the implications on freedom of expression, pointing out that legal regulations that penalise cross-dressing effectively criminalises persons who might go against certain stereotypical expectations for gender roles in expressing themselves.
Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) co-President Mike McCormack described the charges as “absurd,” pointing out that by the same law any woman wearing trousers could presumably be brought before the court on charges. McCormack was disturbed at the selective application of the “outdated statute” to people on the basis of sexual orientation but he said it would likely continue until there is acceptance of a constitutional amendment to outlaw discrimination. “It reinforces the fact that we have to deal up front with sexual orientation issues and modernise the attitudes behind them and the legislation itself,” he said.
Meanwhile, there have also been concerns about the appropriateness of statements attributed to Magistrate Robertson, who presided over the case. Among other things, she has been widely reported as telling the men that they were “confused” about their sexuality and gender, that it was a “curse on the family” and suggesting that they “go to church and give their lives to Christ.”
Magistrate Robertson’s statements should concern every Guyanese, according to SASOD, since in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society everyone should be entitled to the freedom of religion, which includes the freedom not to follow any religion. “In a democratic society, there should be separation of church and state, and judicial officers in the execution of their duties should exercise impartiality in rendering decisions and professionalism when providing guidance to citizens,” SASOD observed. “The acting chief magistrate’s comments imply otherwise, strike as highly inappropriate and raise questions, which other local rights groups have recently highlighted, about the appropriate role of religion in state institutions, and fair treatment under the law,” it said.
McCormack added that Magistrate Robertson should have used the opportunity to exercise leadership by dismissing the charges and recommending the modernisation of the legislation, rather than allowing the police to waste the court’s time. Stabroek News was unable to contact Magistrate Robertson for comment.
