Why the anti homosexuality law is most likely going to be used for political rather than moral reasons
Finally
President Yoweri Museveni has “yielded” to the advice of “our
scientists” to sign the anti homosexual bill. Most Ugandan elites who
were cheering him on social media missed the entire purpose of the
circus in Kyankwazi. The NRM MPs, in exchange for Museveni’s acceptance
to sign the bill, “urged” him to stand for yet another term – unopposed.
This is the kind of bargaining that democratic politics is made of.
However, the supporters of this law, who are the vast majority of
Ugandans, do not appreciate the danger they are courting giving the
state such powers.
Although
the law is written to prosecute homosexuals, its actual application is
most likely going to be persecution of political opponents. Sex is a
very private activity – normally not done in public view.
The
sexual activity that this law is meant to curb – sex among consenting
adults – is one the prosecution cannot prove. This is because proving a
crime requires evidence, often supported by an eyewitness. So one party
must be willing to “spill the beans” for the prosecution to prove
“beyond a reasonable doubt” that a sex act happened. Since such
witnesses will be nonexistent, prosecutors will have to rely on
“circumstance and opportunity” to prove the guilt of the offender.
I
know there are websites of Ugandan youth in homosexual acts – so here
police will have evidence. However, such acts have already been
criminalised under the Anti-pornography law – another of those laws that
shows that our politicians, having failed to serve the interests of the
citizen are now relying on cultural bigotry to bolster their political
fortunes. However, beyond this small circle of victims, it is almost
impossible to enforce this law.
Hence
the only cases where this law can actually work “as intended” is for
defilement and rape. Yet such cases do not actually require a law
specifically made for homosexuals – they cover heterosexuals as well.
Consenting sexual partners have a double coincidence of benefit (both
enjoy the act) and have equally a double coincidence of criminality
(both are liable to life imprisonment). So none of them has an incentive
to reveal the other.
Those
who support homosexual rights have missed the real point of this law.
They have spread alarm and fear that police will be visiting people’s
bedrooms and opening their bed sheets to see which person is indulging
in a homosexual act. Yet, as Ugandans, we know that our police does
chase after criminals who harm others by stealing their property,
assaulting them etc. Our traffic police officers watch indifferently as
boda boda riders run through red lights causing accidents. And of course
the state looks on as public officials loot pubic funds with reckless
abandon. Therefore, I do not see the Uganda police enthusiastically
running after people whose acts generally harm no one.
It
seems to me the anti homosexual law was passed in order to serve our
public’s prejudices or help our MPs score political points. The real
danger is not the law per se but the opportunities it opens up for the
state.
Once
in place, the law will likely be used by the state to persecute and
humiliate its critics – whether they are gay or straight.
Given
the stigma very many Ugandans attach on homosexuals, it will become
increasingly attractive for NRM handlers to accuse their enemies of
being homosexual.
There
has been unanimity of opinion among a broad cross section of Ugandan
elites in favour of a law against homosexuals. They denounce gays for
indulging in unchristian (or unislamic or ungodly), unnatural, unAfrican
and immoral acts.
Yet
these same Ugandan elites indulge in all manner of sin on a daily basis
like fornication, adultery, lies, envy and greed. Should the state
legislate life sentences for all these sins? Is Uganda a theocracy that
should have a state, armed with a religious police as happens in Saudi
Arabia, enforcing God’s will on earth?
Incidentally,
those who argue that homosexuality is unAfrican do not produce any
evidence from our traditions and culture that prohibited it and the
punishment society meted out to offenders. Those who argue that
homosexuality is unnatural claim this is because it does not lead to
procreation. Yet men can sleep with men for pleasure and sleep with
women to rear babies. Besides, even a stupid scientist knows that nature
is not purposeful. Whatever physical and psychological functions we
possess evolved randomly. So the idea that same gender sex is unnatural
is scientifically a very stupid argument.
The
most important argument against homosexuality is neither religious
(should we subject non believers to religious views they do not
subscribe to) nor scientific (as I have argued above) nor the defense of
tradition. It is the issue of morality. One can legitimately criticize
Western countries for trying to enforce a harmony of sexual morality.
Our societies find homosexuality immoral, and morality is arbitrary like
nature; many of its tenets cannot survive if subjected to the test of
reason. However, it is not the role of the state to legislate morality.
If homosexuality is immoral, it should be left to families, churches,
mosques and the clans to handle.
Surprisingly,
church and mosque leaders in Uganda want to use the repressive
machinery of the state to enforce God’s will. Even if, just for
argument’s sake, I accepted the “homosexuality-as-immoral” argument, it
would still mean that our religious leaders and moral guardians of our
clans have failed in their duty to promote good moral standing. In any
case, many morals in our society have crumbled. Therefore, picking,
choosing, and criminalising one while ignoring others is absurd.
The
most important point however is that state has little interest in
morality. And in the specific case of Uganda, our state has even much
less interest in enforcing morality – even policing crime generally. The
state in Uganda is most vigilant when the political fortunes of the NRM
and Museveni are at risk.
One
has only to witness how enthusiastically the police keep opposition
activist Kizza Besigye under watch as criminals elsewhere go scot-free
to see what I am talking about.
Therefore,
the only role the anti homosexual law will serve is not as an
instrument of enforcing morality but of persecuting critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment