The denunciation on June 28th by the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) of the gay and lesbian film festival put on by the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) might have passed without much notice had it not been for two facts. The first was the location of the press conference – on the premises occupied by the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) – and the participation at the press conference of the spokesperson of the IRO, Bishop Juan Edghill who also happens to be the Chairman of the ERC. The Bishop did make it clear that he was participating in his capacity as a religious leader and not as the head of the ERC however that declaration was not enough to prevent transference of the importance of the office of the ERC to the deliberations of the IRO. Indeed, the IRO has on several occasions conducted its activities out of the offices of the ERC and Bishop Edghill has been associated with these events. Aside from its association with the ERC, the IRO is not well known and is an oddity on a landscape where the major religions have assiduously guarded their own turfs. Ironically, it is the parliamentary flap over the IRO which forced President Jagdeo to extend the life of the ERC in a manner completely at odds with the constitution thereby damaging the credibility of this constitutional body in the eyes of the public.

In attacking the film festival, the IRO framed its intervention on the grounds that it was concerned about the corrupting of young minds and the promotion of homosexuality. It also cited the unenclosed area and its easy accessing by “young, impressionable minds” via what Bishop Edghill said was “this public promotion of the homosexual agenda in Guyana”. The Bishop added that while gays and lesbians have rights to education, health care etc they must take cognizance of the fact that there are other people in Guyana with different beliefs. He would later venture much further when he declared that all the religious books speak against homosexuality and that any group that might want to inscribe this issue in their manifesto for the next election would be committing political suicide as the “majority of Guyanese have pronounced on this matter”.

There are several points that should be made here. The first is the evident hypocrisy that attends religious groups like the IRO which sanctimoniously hold themselves out as holier than thou but pretend obliviousness to occurrences within their own ranks which corrupt young minds. Moreover it is evident that a one-off film festival can hardly sow the type of corrupting that worries the IRO in the manner that the daily onslaught of television and music fare, school violence and poverty in all of its various forms have been responsible for. Yet, there is no apparent attention by the IRO to these much larger problems and issues such as violence against women and children, torture by agents of the state etc. The likely reason for this is that the best place for the IRO and its constituents to wage this campaign is in the church, the temple, the masjid and other places of worship where they can effectively connect with those interested in their message. Summoning a press conference hardly seems to be the way to get the message across.

Second, it is troubling that a film fest is being picked upon by the IRO to attack the gay and lesbian community. Films of all genres have long been a mainstay of the entertainment and education tableau of this country. Indeed, film is an essential and throbbing form of expression which every segment of society should be entitled to. What gives the IRO the right to install itself as the arbiter of what the gay and lesbian community should present and what its audience might want to see? Had the IRO sat through the entire festival and distilled content that clashed with the laws of the country that would have been another matter. The IRO is quite free to decide on what it should like screened but it should not be attempting to circumscribe the right of others to do just that. More telling is the argument that in its punctilious alighting on the gay and lesbian film festival, the IRO appears blissfully unaware that what it might consider mainstream films are filled with gratuitous violence, sex, debauchery and morals-bending scenes which it should protect young people from.

Third, the gay and lesbian community of this country comprise a vulnerable minority that faces the slings and barbs of society on a daily basis and is struggling to have its voice heard in relation to laws that it believes oppresses it, on the reversal of the stigma that prevents its members from coming forward to be tested for HIV and many other issues. The seriousness of this matter was recently raised at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva when Guyana came up for its Universal Periodic Review. Given the circumstances one would have thought that the IRO would have adopted a more sensitive approach to asserting its concerns over the film festival – perhaps a meeting with SASOD? Its out of the blue remonstration with the group bespeaks of motivations which may not yet be known to the public.

Fourth, even though it made an effort to focus its concerns on the film festival and its influence on impressionable youth, the IRO’s press conference came across as unacceptably homophobic and intolerant both in content and tone. The Bishop’s sweeping declaration about the stance of religions on homosexuality and Reverend McGarrell’s officious statement that religious leaders have decided that society needs to be protected from homosexual behaviour are cases in point. The IRO executives exacerbated this oppressive atmosphere by seeking to deny the gay and lesbian community the right to counsel others who go to them for advice as evidenced by Bishop Edghill’s statements that there was an “outfit that is educating young Guyanese about homosexual activities and that it is okay, which is something against the law” and again that while all religions love human beings their teachings are very clear that homosexuality is an evil act. The Bishop appears to have reduced the spectrum of relations in this community to a single act which has been criminalised.

It is also relevant to the manner in which the IRO argued against the film festival that Bishop Edghill had been at the forefront of the successful campaign to disallow sexual orientation as one of the grounds in the constitution on which discrimination is prohibited. He has therefore displayed a disposition that is from the outset not accommodating of the views of this community.

No right thinking organization can properly conceive that a film festival examining gay and lesbian relations endangers society any more than any other type of festival. No right thinking organization can properly perceive that SASOD via the film festival would try to impose its mores and views on reluctant persons. No right thinking person can apprehend that religions should be able to dictate to any freely composed group what films aren’t to be offered to members of the public as long as no law is transgressed.

The greater danger however is that the IRO’s sententious declarations at the press conference will lead to an atmosphere that is even less accommodating of the views and rights of people with alternative lifestyles. That would be a dangerous development and one that should give the IRO pause for thought.