The
belief that homosexuals are inherently immoral has made its way across the
Atlantic to our fair land. Charles Kanjama, a candidate for the chairmanship of
the Law Society of Kenya, argues that there is something wrong with embracing
the gay agenda; that each nation should be free to discriminate (or not
discriminate) against The Gay Agenda and its advocates. Calestous Juma, a
Kenyan scientist living in the United States, argues that discriminatory laws
can be used even against those they are supposedly meant to protect.
Kenya
is going through an intense process in the implementation of its progressive
constitution. It is becoming increasingly apparent that different communities
of interests have different agendas. There are those that would love to have
the constitution implemented in full; there are those who would love to see the
process slow-rolled as we "work out the kinks in the document;" there
still others who like to see the whole thing shelved "until Kenyans are
ready."
It is
in the context of the implementation of the constitution that Kenyans are asked
to debate whether or not the law should be amended to decriminalise homosexual
acts; to protect homosexuals from discrimination; and to recognise their
"rights" to healthcare, safety, adoption of children, marriage, and
so on and so forth. The argument is being framed as being an unwarranted
assault on our sovereignty as a nation to determine what is and what is not
suitable for the peoples of Kenya against the obligations of a free society to
permit individuals the widest liberties without infringing on the rights of
others. It is being framed, too, as a moral battle between those who would
still believe that homosexuality is a path to great moral decline while there
are those who argue that what happens between two consenting adults behind
closed doors and shut curtains is no business of yours or mine.
Despite
what the various advocates for one side or the other argue, the constitution
forms the foundation of the laws that we will enact, revise or repeal. It is
not enough to blithely declare that the people will determine whether to
"permit" or not the Gay Agenda; it must be declared in the context of
whether the constitution prevails. If we are to ignore the provisions on
non-discrimination and equality, we must do so honestly. We should not
dissemble. We should tell all Kenyans that we do not believe that the Bill of
Rights should be read as it has been drafted. We must tell them that we will
pick and choose who will enjoy protections under the Bill of Rights and who
will not. We must make it explicit that homosexual acts and homosexual persons
do not deserve the protection of the constitution, that it is our solemn
responsibility to not only make it impossible for them to be who they claim to
be, but we must find a way of re-engineering their psyches and suppressing
their immoral, perverted urges.
If
the constitutions prevails, however, then the purveyors of such hate-filled
religious bigotry must be put in their place. They may promote their
hate-mongering in the name of protecting the institution of marriage, in
protecting the children, in protecting Kenyans from immoral and corruptive
influences, and generally, ensuring that the bulk of all right-thinking Kenyans
will find itself on the way to heaven when the day of judgment is upon us.
Whether we will admit it today or not, the breadth of individual liberties in
the constitution implies that the State, and all its agencies, are no longer
welcome in my bedroom. Or bathroom. Or home. If they think I'm unfit to look
after my child, they can only prove it in the courts. If they think that my
neighbour three doors down is a pederast of the worst kind, it is the courts
that will settle the matter and I can then shun the little perv.
It is
the institution of the constitution and the rule of law that must determine
whether or not Kenyans will one day marry whom they want and adopt children
when these children have no one else. But when you have leading lights of the
Law Society asking for Kenyans to set aside the provisions of the constitution
on equality and non-discrimination, and instead, discriminate actively against
fellow-Kenyans because they "worship at another church" it is only a
matter of time before we decide that we really didn't mean for women, children
and the vulnerable to be protected by the constitution, or that environmental
rights are the wild imaginations of tree-huggers of the Committee of Experts.
They came for The Gay, and I did nothing...
No comments:
Post a Comment