Family values: We all have a role to play.

As Kenya approaches elections in a reform environment, some civil society organisations led by Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) have chosen to undermine our moral and family values by deliberate promotion of abortion, homosexuality and rampant teen sexuality."

- Charles Kanjama, Politicians should state their stand on moral values, Standard on Sunday (January 6, 2012)

The ideal family is modelled on the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary and Joseph (a child with their father and mother). For centuries this has been the norm. The Twentieth Century saw a blurring of the lines between what was normal and what was perverse, especially coming out of the Nineteenth Century where even persons of different races were not permitted to found families of their own. In the United States, the Baby Boom generation led the charge in redefining societal norms, indulging in great excesses such as "free love", drug use and defined by the rock and roll music of The Beatles and Elvis Presley. The Civil Rights movement, led by icons such as The Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, and Thurgood Marshall were the voices championing the rights of the African Americans in the face of great opposition from White America.

In the 1980s, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, long ignored by the conservative Reagan administration, again redefined sexual relations. With the influx of millions of American women in the work force, the home was again redefined: it was no longer anathema for the woman to bring home the bacon alongside her husband. Indeed, many women, in the pursuit of higher education and careers, remained unmarried longer than had been the norm and some never married at all. The end of the '80 and the beginning of the '90s saw, especially in the African American community, the rise of gangsta rap and hip hop, with the likes of Tupac Shakur, Dr Dre and Easy E further shattering the final shackles that kept young black men and women from expressing themselves, especially on "young love" and sexuality. The end of the 1990s and the beginning of the Twenty-first Century saw the broadening of access to the information and communication tools that would redefine a generation's aspirations, their hopes and dreams, and act as a catalyst to the rapid spread of new ideas, both good and bad.

Between 1963 and 1992, Kenya was defined by the struggle for individual rights, the so-called human, political and civil rights. Until the repeal of Section 2A of the former Constitution, Kenya was the personal plaything of the President. His word was law, and it mattered not that there was an elected Parliament. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Kenyans were the victims of the abuse of power by the President, his government and the ruling party. Individual expression, presumed to be the received orthodoxy, was conservative. Alternative voices were stifled. Laws that the colonial government had relied on to divide and rule a restive country of forty-two odd ethnic communities became the very same weapons that successive independent governments used to control and oppress Kenyans. The final defeat of KANU in 2002 did not simply mean that only political life would be redefined; it also meant that such institutions as the family would have to also. The rise of organisations such as the KHRC meant that sooner or later, when the political landscape had been re-shaped, there would be an attempt to re-shape other institutions. It was to be expected that taboo subjects such as homosexuality, teen sexuality and abortion would be discussed in the light of day with both for and against groups claiming legitimacy and accusing the other of being "puppets" and "frauds".

Those opposed to the liberalisation of attitudes towards teen sexuality, homosexuality and abortion claim that this is an attempt to corrupt Kenyans' family values. But if the nature of the family has been redefined irreversibly, could their stand be tenable? They frequently argue that the Constitution is being debased by a liberal interpretation of its core principles, rejecting the argument that it permits these ideas. However, and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, the Constitution could be interpreted as the most profound expression of individual liberty this country has ever witnessed. The Bill of Rights prohibits discrimination. In addition to the 17 grounds that it lists, and with the use of the word "including" in the Non-discrimination Clause, some believe that the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and expands the liberty of the individual to make choices regarding their person, especially on such matters as sex and abortion. If a child cannot be discriminated against because of their age, the decisions that the child makes regarding sexuality can only be limited if such decisions place that child at risk. It is for this reason that an adult is prohibited from having sexual relations with a child, regardless of the child's consent, such as it may be. But a teenager frequently ignores the wisdom of their parents, their teachers, their pastors, and the government, and engages in acts that place their at risk, such as sexual relations, before their have the maturity to make good decisions. The failure to rein in teen sexuality is not the fault of the state, the KHRC or the law, but the failure of society, the family, and social and family institutions.

The same can be argued about abortion or homosexuality. Before political freedom became the overriding national obsession, the state, the church and the family played a crucial role in not only educating the children, but in moulding them into moral upstanding citizens who knew right from wrong and who understood what their obligations to each other were. In only exceptional circumstances would an unplanned pregnancy be terminated and only in exceptional circumstances would a person see another person of the same sex as an object of sexual desire. Today, it seems that all these institutions have crumbled to dust. The state can no longer afford to care for its sick or for the living for that matter. The individual has been left with the burden of deciding the best course of action for his life. The church has been corrupted. Even the established churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, no longer play the moral leadership role they played in the past. Sexual scandals continue to rock these institutions, especially for the Roman Catholic Church which has had to contend with revelations that for decades the hierarchy has covered up rampant sexual abuse of children and women by priests.

The question of family values is a vital one. In it we will find the moral values that must govern our lives, and our nation. But it is dangerous to look at family values only through the prism of an idyllic past that never was. In the Twenty-first Century, family values are not just guided by religious or political leaders. In Kenya, especially, individual freedom to make decisions regarding such personal matters as who to love and whether or not to have a child, must also inform the debate on family values. We must, by all means, debate whether it is proper to permit "abortion-on-demand" or whether to teach children about sexuality; what we cannot do is to allow the debate to be one-sided or to simply ignore facts on the ground. The spread of information and communication technology, especially the democratisation of telecommunication through the supply of ever cheaper internet-ready mobile phones will challenge us to come up with the best way to mould our children into the best they can be, morally, spiritually and in civic matters. Their access to different ideas, both good and bad, is greater than it was even ten years ago; it is not possible to turn back the tide of information on sexuality, or abortion. If we accept this, perhaps, just perhaps, we may be able to address these challenges with a view to moulding them into men and women capable of acting in their best moral and spiritual interests. It is time we all got involved fully in these questions, especially by insisting that institutions such as the Church stop fighting unseen enemies, but instead go back to being what they were: sanctuaries for the faithful where they can receive counsel, succour and safe harbour.