CCJ to hear Guyana cross dressing appeal

FOUR cross-dressing men from Guyana will have their appeal heard at the Caribbean Court of Justice in Port of Spain, later this month.

The four - Quincy Mc Ewan, a commercial sex worker in Georgetown; Seon Clarke, Joseph Fraser and Seyon Persaud - have challenged a ruling of Guyana’s Court of Appeal which dismissed their appeal in which they contended that country’s colonial vagrancy law discriminated against them and violated equality provisions in the constitution.

The appeal is expected to be heard on June 28, by video conferencing from the Henry Street-based court.

In a unanimous decision, last year, acting Chancellor of Guyana’s Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh, acting Chief Justice Yonette Edwards-Cummings and Justice Brassington Reynolds upheld the ruling of former acting Chief Justice Ian Chang that both men and women were free to cross-dress in public once the reason for doing so was not for an “improper purpose.”

Chang, in his ruling, held that cross-dressing by men was not a crime.

The four, in 2010, asked the Guyana Supreme Court to strike down the law which left them open to arrest.

Chang’s ruling meant men could dress in women’s clothing, but not for any “improper purpose.” The ruling did not say what constituted an “improper purpose.”

Guyanese law also prohibits women from appearing in public dressed as men, although they are allowed to wear trousers.

Homosexuality is also a criminal offence in Guyana.

Chang, who ruled that the police had violated the rights of the four men during a 2009 crackdown, said he did not believe the law amounted to “discrimination,” in violation of Guyana’s constitution.

The four had been charged and fined for wearing women’s clothing for an improper purpose under Section 153 (1) (XLVII) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act Chapter 8:02 - a 1893 vagrancy law.

At the time, then chief magistrate Melissa Robertson had told them that they were “confused” and should “go to church and give their lives to Christ.”

Section 153 (1) (XLVII) makes every man who appears in “female attire” and every woman who appears in “male attire,” in any public way or public place, “for any improper purpose,” liable to a fine not less than of $7,500 or more than $10,000.

For more details on this story, read tomorrow's Newsday.