Appeal Court upholds ruling on cross-dressing
Members of the Guyana Trans United and SASOD along with their Attorneys, Arif Bulkan and Gino Persaud following the ruling. [Ravin Singh photo]
Members of the Guyana Trans United and SASOD along with their Attorneys, Arif Bulkan and Gino Persaud following the ruling. [Ravin Singh photo]

–SASOD, GTU say ‘vagueness’ of law could lead to discrimination

THE Court of Appeal on Monday upheld a 2013 ruling by former Chief Justice, Ian Chang that cross-dressing is not a crime, once not done for “improper purposes”.

In 2010, a group of trans-gender men had asked the Supreme Court to strike down laws that left them open to arrest following a police crackdown the year before on male cross-dressers.

While Chang’s subsequent ruling allowed for men to dress in women’s clothing, it did not say what constituted “improper purpose”, which led to concerns about interpretation.

Subsequently, an appeal was filed by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, seeking clarity on what constitutes “improper purpose”.

On Monday, however, Chancellor of the Judiciary, Carl Singh, Acting Chief Justice, Yvonne Cummings-Edwards, and High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, unanimously upheld the decision made by Justice Chang in 2013.

Singh reasoned that an improper purpose would be a man dressing as a woman, and using this female image to solicit services from a taxi driver, after which he robs the driver.

NOT FOR THE COURT
With “improper purposes” not being clearly defined, the Chancellor explained that it is not for the court to define what improper is, since Parliament has not done so.

The Summary Jurisdiction Act, which criminalised men and women presenting themselves in attire of the opposite sex, came into effect in 1893.

This means, too, that when cases related to cross-dressing arise in the court, interpretation of the word “improper” will be determined by the magistrate hearing that case.

However, lead counsel for the appellants, Arif Bulkan explained that what this allows for is discrimination to continue, since there is no one interpretation of what improper is.

Said he: “We have had magistrates excluding ‘trans(gender)’ women from court for dressing in the gender with which they identify, and this court here repeated that it is not a crime.
“Yet, we have had, and continue to have magistrates doing that.”

‘DRESS LIKE A MAN’
Just minutes before this ruling was handed down, city magistrate Dylon Bess, in dealing with an assault matter involving a trans-gender woman, reportedly asked the public to leave his courtroom, after which he instructed the trans-gender woman to “dress like a man” when she returns to court.

The magistrate is alleged to have done the same thing last week.
Meanwhile, in relation to the cross-dressing ruling, Bulkan said that he was disappointed in the ruling, but that there is still room for Monday’s decision to be appealed.

“Admittedly, yes, it is disappointing, but it’s not the final court of appeal in Guyana,” he said, adding that the decision could more than likely be challenged, since it deals with the rights and liberties of citizens of Guyana.

The Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD), the country’s leading LGBT lobbyist group, has indicated that the appellants have confirmed that they intend to appeal this ruling to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.