Georgetown: The Court of Appeal is Wednesday expected to hear the case brought by male-to-female cross-dressers that the country’s law against cross-dressing is “hopelessly vague”.In early September, 2013, then Chief Justice Ian Chang ruled that cross-dressing by men is not a crime as long as they did not do so for an “improper purpose.” Cross-dressers believed that this did not stop them from being arrested or harassed by the Police, as the Judge did not define what “improper purpose” meant.
As a result, the cross-dressers, along with SASOD, which advocates for the rights of sexual minority groups, appealed the Chief Justice’s ruling.
The transgender women had petitioned the High Court to strike down laws that left them opened to arrest, following a police crackdown the year before on male-to-female cross-dressers.
Wednesday, Chancellor of the Judiciary Carl Singh is expected to preside over the appeal hearing with a panel of appellate judges.
After the original case was filed in 2010, the organisation Guyana Trans United (GTU) was established to ensure respect for the dignity of transgender persons in Guyana and the protection of their human rights. The first named applicant/appellant Quincy (Gulliver) McEwan is a founder and the Executive Director of GTU. That organisation and its members are closely following this case.
The McEwan case argues that the archaic cross-dressing law, found in section 153 (1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act 1893, is inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana. It also argues that the conduct of the Chief Magistrate, who told the individual appellants that they were confused about their sexuality and should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, also was not consistent with the Guyana Constitution.
In a statement, SASOD stated that “the vagaries of this vague language were seen as recently as March, when a magistrate cited the cross-dressing law to explain why he would not allow transgender women to appear in court wearing women’s clothing.”
The lawyers for four individual appellants, McEwan, Clarke, Fraser,and Persaud, as well as SASOD, will present arguments to demonstrate that the cross-dressing law is “hopelessly vague” and, as a result, does not meet the constitutional requirement associated with the rule of law.
“It is a well-established principle that if law is to rule, it must be certain and ordinary citizens, as well as state officials, must know precisely what is being prohibited.
“ The appellants will also argue that the cross-dressing law is inconsistent with the guarantee made in the Guyana Constitution that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and benefit from the law,” SASOD stated.
You must be logged in to post a comment.