Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Iana Seales: How can advocating equality for sexual minorities compromise journalistic integrity?

Dear Editor
I refer to the letter by Iana Seales captioned How can advocating equality for sexual minorities
compromise journalistic integrity? (SN 7/18/14) and would appreciate the opportunity to comment.
The solemn task of the Christian community in Guyana has always been to provide the fact, truth, detail
and evidence that Guyanese need to make informed decisions.
Ms. Seales has obviously limited her intellectual repertoire, and journalistic perspective, to a casual
appraisal of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is our view that that would be ... unwise! She will
find that homosexuality is not a civil right, but a civil wrong as the data in the CDCs 2010 report HIV
and AIDS Among Gay and Bisexual Men (http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/FastFacts-MSM-
FINAL508COMP.pdf ) outlines.
First, then, in answer to her point that "... it is important for every citizen of our country to be able to
express themselves freely and say who they are and also show who they are without fear of
condemnation...." we should express utter amazement that in those words she now admits that Juan
Edghill never lost that right in speaking out against what he, and his faith, considers to be anathema to
common sense, physiology, epidemiology and good public policy. To aid and abet sasod in a quest for
the UN to silence and punish him is therefore hypocritical and gruesome!
The callous hypocrisy Ms. Seales now exhibits completely blinds her to the importance of this fact, as
she also is of the fact that no citizen of Guyana should conflate the two issues ... "speaking out" and
being "subject to condemnation". We submit that it is in the active exchange of ideas (which includes
"condemnation") that fact, truth, detail and evidence can be brought to bear to show the relevance, or
idiocy, inherent in any proffered argument.
It is not our fault that a surfeit of the latter informs hers!
Ms. Seales, as we have offered, is remarkable in that she will not for the life of her address the fact,
truth, detail and evidence offered against gay rights, and which militates instead in favour of a
generalized medical/spiritual/psychiatric/healing/epidemiological response to obvious and debilitating
psychosexual distress ... but in this case condescends to say that the evidence is "noted". If this is not
sophistry, then what is?
Good law is based on good data, and if the only homage Seales pays to good data is to "note" it, then
the only sure diagnosis of her "condition" is deception! She blithely parrots the inanity that human
rights are the cornerstones of governance and democratic politics for sustainable development. but
forgets to mention that, from Juan Edghills perspective, the avoidance of the premise that good law is
based on good data leads to Michelle Phillips catastrophic conclusion:
The sacred doctrine of human rights which explicitly sets itself up as the religion for a
godless age is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our
civilisation, on the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive.
One might be puzzled as to Phillips vehemence until one reads her article How Britain is Turning
Christianity Into a Crime (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404052/How-Britain-turning-
Christianity-crime.html ). Britain is doing this on the basis of gay rights and homosexuality!
Shouldnt Mr. Edghill be concerned? Shouldnt Iana Seales be concerned?
So we repeat what we said in each of the responses to her three columns, the last being "Iana Seales:
The Right to Equality?" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/233666970/Iana-Seales-The-Right-to-Equality ). In
that document we ask, AND answer, the following question: "Why MUST Guyana's Christians ... and law-
abiding citizens generally ... oppose 'gay' rights generally?"
While Ms. Seales has noted ... but NOT answered ... Kathleen Melonakos' question "Why Isn't
Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?" ( http://www.wf-
f.org/Melonakos.html ), she may find some of the answers she seeks in the on-line article
"Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right" by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia
(http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ), part of which reads:
When protecting ones inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between
liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity, not
because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral
tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Natures God," as stated in the
Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most
fundamental forms of self-governmentfamily, church, and community. This is especially the
case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights
"Gay" advocacy depends for its success on the premise that its victims and audience will not ... read!
From all the questions that Ms. Seales now asks, it is clear that she is herself a victim ... but we have
given her the tools to escape a dubious distinction (of being a journalist that does not read, or routinely
ignores fact, truth, detail and evidence).
In the submissions above, Ms. Seales' answers are right before her eyes, but there are none as blind ...
as those who would not see!
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams