Box Turtle Bulletin

A debate in Guyana

Guyana is a small South American nation of less than a million people just north of Brazil. But in culture and attitude it is worlds away from some of its neighbors.

Unlike many South American countries, Guyana is not primarily an ethnic blend of indigenous and European peoples. Rather, it’s largest ethnic subgroup are descendants of immigrants from India, followed by people of African heritage. And while half of the population is Christian, less than 10% are Roman Catholic and between a quarter and a third are Hindu.

Thus, although their language is English, the Guyanese have a culture more similar to the Caribbean and do not consider themselves to be “Western.” And recently, like many other Caribbean nations, Guyana has become engaged in a national debate over homosexuality.

Guyana may be the only nation in South America in which homosexuality is illegal; however, this may be largely unenforced, and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination actively advocates for gay rights. Currently there is a flurry of attention over the issue in the culture and in the papers.

On July 29th the Inter-Religious Organisation, through its spokesman Bishop Juan Edghill, condemned a series of films being presented by SASOD. He said that while gay people should have rights “to education, to health care… they must be able to have access to housing and the right to rent an apartment… they must have the benefits like every other citizens,” they should be restricted from “attempting to corrupt young minds in society by using its gay and lesbian film festival to promote homosexuality.” (Stabroek News)

He said the fact that gays and lesbian are internationally accepted and are allowed certain rights, even marriage, does not mean that Guyana has to “subscribe to the western culture. We cannot allow the western world to come and foist their lifestyles and thinking on to us. This will simply mean that we are just allowing a new form of colonialism.

This may have passed with little more attention than the rantings of the AFA except for three things. First, Edghill is the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission, and the press release was on government property, which sparked an editorial response.

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.

Second, the equation of homosexuality with Westernism triggered a rebuttal from Dr. Christopher Carrico, a professor in the Department of Language and Cultural Studies at the University of Guyana:

One of the great ironies is that traditions that were imposed upon non-European societies through the violent process of colonialism are today thought of in neo-colonial societies as ‘traditional values’ to be defended against the onslaught of Western ‘cultural imperialism.’ Current debates surrounding gender roles and sexual orientation provide us with clear examples of these processes.

And third, the pronouncement of the Inter-Religious Organisation failed to take into consideration the Hindu perspective. Swami Aksharananda clarified.

We also have to be concerned about what is glibly and uncritically invoked to be the position of scriptures on homosexuality. There is hardly any consensus here. While it is true that some religious books consider homosexuality as an abomination, Hinduism, for example, offers a much more nuanced and sophisticated perspective on the matter. While Hinduism does not approve of homosexuality, it admits of a wide range of sexual orientation possibilities and therefore the vehemence and stridency with which the IRO has expressed its anti-homosexual sentiments cannot be shared by Hindus.

Rationality is all I am advocating. Religious people often decide which things are right and wrong based on what they believe and imagine to be true, which in turn is based on what is stated in their religious texts. How does one know whether a religious scripture is right? The answer is that it is the inviolable, unalterable word of God. And, how does one know that it is the word of God? The only answer is because God says so. Quite an eternal conundrum!

Rationality, therefore, must be the only sound base for our relationship and for understanding one another. No religious scripture, no matter how sacred we hold it to be, which elevates itself beyond the scrutiny of reason, can be accepted as a standard by which to judge human conduct. It can never be a safe ground on which to decide important issues that may have implications in matters of life and death.

This is a fascinating cultural development and it will be interesting to see which set of ideas prevails.