Chief Justice Ian Chang, sitting in the Constitutional Court, heard full arguments from lawyers acting on behalf of the applicants – Quincy McEwan, Seon Clarke, Joseph Fraser,Cheap China Jerseys Authentic, Seyon Persaud and the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD).They are challenging the decision by the State to institute charges against men for cross-dressing.Justice Chang also heard a response from the State, on Tuesday June 4, 2013. The petitioners see that as an important case that will help to determine the implications of the commitment made in the Guyana Constitution to “eliminating every form of discrimination.”Attorney, Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies, St Augustine and co-coordinator of the Faculty of Law UWI Rights Advocacy Project (U-RAP), Dr. Arif Bulkan, and Gino Persaud appeared for the applicants. Dr. Bulkan argued that section 153(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act which criminalizes cross-dressing for an ‘improper purpose’ violates the Constitution of Guyana because it is discriminatory and vague.He argued that the cross-dressing law is discriminatory on the basis of sex and gender as it seeks to criminalize persons who do not conform with socially constructed stereotypes associated with their biological sex.“Tuesday’s full-day court hearing is really the culmination of more than 4 years’ work between SASOD, U-RAP, Guyanese human rights attorneys and the transgender folk who suffered egregious abuses and enduring injury to their human dignity during the February 2009 police crackdowns on cross-dressing,” said SASOD’s Co-Chair,China Jerseys Free Shipping, Joel Simpson.“Justice can only be served by the court declaring this insidious law unconstitutional, null and void,Cheap Jerseys Online,” Simpson concluded.The case of Quincy McEwan and others v. Attorney General was filed on the eve of World Day of Social Justice, February 19, 2010, by SASOD and four of seven persons convicted and fined in 2009 for violating section 153(1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act,Cheap Jerseys From China, which makes it a criminal offence for men to wear female attire and for women to wear male attire in a public place for an improper purpose.One of the litigants,2018 NFL Draft Jersey, Quincy McEwan, better known as Gulliver, said, “If the decision is positive, we can safely go about wearing our clothes without the police arresting us for dressing a certain way – and this case is evidence that we do face discrimination.”Another litigant, Joseph Fraser, known as Peaches, said, “There are plenty of transgenders out there who are looking for jobs; who don’t feel comfortable in male clothes, so they are discriminated against because of the way they dress – and as a result, engage in sex work to make an honest living. If the Chief Justice does not rule that this law is unconstitutional, everything will go back to square one and we will continue to be oppressed,Baker Mayfield Jersey,” Fraser added.ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPLICANTSIn his arguments, Dr. Arif Bulkan said that the law was historically oppressive and originated from the 19th century colonial vagrancy laws, which were instituted to control the free movement and activities of ex-slaves and indentured servants in the British Caribbean, especially in urban places.This 1893 law also criminalises other activities in the city such as grooming an animal in a public place; placing goods in a public way in town; beating a mat in a public way; flying a kite in the city; loitering around a shop and hauling timber in a public way. Dr. Bulkan described these as victimless offences and mechanisms of social control.In response to questions from the bench, Dr. Bulkan focused on the fundamental constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires that any law which interferes with your individual rights and creates a criminal offence must be formulated with as much precision as possible to allow the regular person to know in advance what is being prohibited and regulate his or her conduct.He said that this so-called offence of being dressed for an “improper purpose” is so uncertain and unclear that it violates the principles of fundamental justice. He argued that it is so vague that it gives “boundless discretion” to the police and magistrates that would be applying this law “and encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement…” He said the definition of male and female attire is now blurred – and he asked the question: “Who determines male and female attire?” He added, “What the State has failed to prove is whether the law has any meaning.”Dr. Bulkan said,