Prof Makau Mutua’s piece titled “Rights body has finally stood up for gays and lesbians” (SN,
May 13) bashes valid objections to homosexuality and lesbianism, and
attempts to recast these practices as human rights protected under the
Bill of Rights, though they remain illegal under the Penal Code.
Fixated with Western aphorisms such as “democracy”,
“human rights”, “tolerance”, and “openness”, an increasing number of
African intellectuals under the aegis of “civil society” have gleefully
joined a well-choreographed global campaign by Western governments to
propagate homosexuality as part of the “human rights” rubric and
population control agenda.
Aware that within most cultures few openly embrace
or accept sexual deviance (including homosexuality and lesbianism), the
powers behind this diabolical agenda have relentlessly sought to rebrand
them, to make them more readily acceptable, hence the donning of sodomy
and lesbianism with the ethereal-sounding and legally-protected garb of
“human rights”.
As part of this sexual-cultural putsch, the
traditional and widely-used descriptions of same-sex relations such as
“sodomy” and “homosexuality” have been replaced by more
innocuous-sounding, suave, (even anagogical and acceptable) ones such as
“gay”,”LGBT”, or “men having sex with men”.
This rebranding has been marketed from a variety of
springboards, ranging from court decisions to social organisations, in
order to accord rebranded homosexuality wider acceptance, legality, and
authenticity, while at the same time stripping it of the stinging
stigma.
Zealous acolytes have pilloried anyone standing in
their path and perceived to be resisting this wave, branding them as
“homophobes” and “conservatives” whose cultural, religious, or moral
reservations towards, and against homosexuality are dismissed as having
atrophied into irrelevance.
More fundamentally, foreign aid is increasingly being tied to acceptance of homosexuality.
As a conjugant in the trend, particularly in
Western Europe, stretching the scope and application of “hate speech”
laws to punish anyone who frowns upon homosexual conduct has been the
latest frontier in this rebranding, but which (to his credit) Prof Makau
steered away from.
In the end, the phonetic gymnastics describing same-sex
relations may paint a superficial transformation from a pejorative,
stigmatised act to what is perceived as a politically correct expression
of “liberty”; but this nevertheless leaves sodomy essentially unaltered
in terms of what it has always been known in Africa – unacceptable.
This is not a putative, theoretical rejection of
homosexuality across African cultures but a factual one. In
exemplification, the Kikuyu of Kenya have consistently rejected
homosexuality as “mugiro”; meaning an intolerable evil, and an
abominable act that invites divine wrath.
This cultural rejection of homosexuality can neither amount to bigotry nor be classified as an expression of hate.
It simply is not within the moral sphere of the
Kikuyu to embrace homosexuality, nor is it openly practised among them,
with the notable exception of extremely rare cases.
When Prof Makau laments that he has been pilloried
for defending homosexuality and then turns to brand as bigoted and
hiding behind religion and culture to “spread” hate anyone who objects
to the practice on religious or cultural grounds, isn’t he being
hypocritical?
To argue that the Constitution does not outlaw
homosexuality (even indirectly) is redactionist of Prof Makau, and is
itself a very narrow interpretation of the document, since the Rule of
Law espoused in Article 10(2)(a) presumes that Section 162-165 of the
Penal Code are automatically embedded in the gamut of valid Kenyan laws.
Which African culture is this that Prof Makau
speaks of that openly embraces homosexuality and offers a platform for
one to readily and openly practise and celebrate such acts as part of
its cultural values, and which Kenyans should belong to, so that they
cease condemning homosexuality? None.
Which religion does he have in mind that promotes homosexuality? There is none.
The freedom of religion enshrined in Article 32(4)
of the Constitution guarantees that if one’s religion outlaws
homosexuality, then as part of that religion, one is entitled to an
unequivocal expression of disaffiliation with homosexual practices, and
to condemn an expression as “bigotry” is itself a breach of that right.
Rhetorically, does “openly speaking for gay rights”
which he propounds as a solution to eliminate the stigma that attaches
to homosexuality effectively function to reduce or eliminate the stigma?
A stinking fish by any other name will never cease to offend nasal senses even if the mouth speaks bountifully of an imaginary beautiful scent.
Mr. J. Harrison Kinyanjui
A stinking fish by any other name will never cease to offend nasal senses even if the mouth speaks bountifully of an imaginary beautiful scent.
Mr. J. Harrison Kinyanjui
