According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the initial draft of the constitutional amendment, the intention was to alter article 149 of the Constitution, and expand the meaning of discrimination thereby affording constitutional protection against discrimination on a number of bases, including sexual orientation, marital status, disability and pregnancy.

To this end the Bill sought to remove paragraphs (2) and (4) of article 149 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (1980) and to substitute new paragraphs.

Paragraph (2) of the original article 149 had stated:

“In this article the expression ‘discriminatory’ means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed, whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not afforded to persons of another such description.”

The paragraph that was to be substituted was as follows:

“In this article the expression ‘discriminatory’ means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their or their parents’ or guardians’ respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, age, disability, marital status, sex, gender, language, sexual orientation, birth, social class, pregnancy, religion, conscience, belief or culture whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which other persons of the same or another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not afforded to other persons of the same or another such description.”

Paragraph (4) of the unamended article 149 which has now been deleted, read as follows:

“Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraph (l)(a) to the extent that it makes provision with respect to standards or qualifications (not being standards or qualifications specifically relating to race, place of origin, political opinion, colour or creed) to be required of any person who is appointed to any office in the public service, any office in a disciplined force, or any office in the service of a local democratic organ or of a body corporate established by any law for public purposes.

Paragraph (4) which was to be substituted stated:

“Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraph (1)(a) to the extent that it makes provision with respect to standards or qualifications (not being standards or qualifications specifically relating to a person’s or his or her parents’ or guardians’ respective description by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, age, disability, marital status, sex, gender, language, sexual orientation, birth, social class, pregnancy, religion, conscience, belief or culture) to be required of any person who is to be appointed to any office in the public service, any office in a disciplined force or any office in the service of a local democratic organ or of a body corporate established by any law for public purposes.”

As mentioned above, however, owing to the controversy surrounding the inclusion of the phrase ‘sexual orientation’ in the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 9) Bill, it was removed, and put into a separate Bill of its own (No. 10), which has yet to be brought to Parliament. The remaining amendments to paragaphs (2) and (4) of Article 149 of the Constitution contained in Bill No. 9, were, however, brought to the National Assembly, and were duly passed.

One of the objections that critics of the ‘sexual orientation’ bill (No. 10) have raised is that the amendment will create the opportunity for people to challenge the institution of heterosexual marriage. In an editor’s note to a letter carried in Stabroek News of July 26, 2003, Article 149 of the Constitution was quoted. Paragraph 3 (which has not been amended) states:

“Paragraph (1) (a) [which states that no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory...] shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision -

(a) with respect to persons who are not citizens of Guyana;

(b) with respect to adoption, marriage, divorce, burial, devolution of property on death or other matters of personal law.”

The note went on to say: “The effect of (3) is that no amendment can affect the existing laws of marriage.”

Whatever their views on the subject of the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 10) Bill, consumers are advised to read for themselves what Article 149 of the Constitution says.