By: Joseph M. Kusi/www.africanakua.com, Ghana
One of the hottest issues currently in Ghana’s socio-political discourse is about the published draft Anti-LGBTQ Bill. It’s been formulated by some eight(8) well-meaning Members of Parliament and it’s expected to make its way to Ghana’s 8th Parliament to be passed into law. The full name of the proposed law is “Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, 2021.”
The content and what the bill seeks to accomplish have sparked mixed public reactions both in favor and against it. In this article, I seek to deal with two of the issues that some people have raised to attack the bill. I strongly defend the proposed bill as progressive, scientific and rational.
The two main issues that I’ll deal with here is 1) that the bill infringes upon the fundamental human rights of LGBTQ+ activists particularly their freedom of association. 2) that portions of the bill threatens or attacks freedom of speech and academic freedom. These positions are without merit and must be rejected.
First, it must be noted that what the proposed Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill is seeking to do is to proscribe or criminalize LGBTQ+ acts or practices. That’s where the discussion should begin from, not freedom of association. Once the criminality of an act is determined and accepted, the discussion of freedom of association for the act or practice becomes irrelevant. This is the same for other criminal acts like armed robbery or theft, murder, rape, etc. Do we argue for freedom of association for people who engage or promote any of these criminal acts? The answer is simply no, because these acts are deemed as criminal. I posit therefore, that no law recognises freedom of association for criminal acts, behavior or practices. Therefore, we must begin the discussion from the criminality or otherwise of LGBTQ+, and once that’s resolved, all other discussions will fall into its proper place.
On the Criminality of LGBTQ+
I argue that LGBTQ+ practices should be seen as criminal not from a mere moral or cultural perspective which often times have allowed activists and advocates of LGBTQ to ride on the back of the fluidity, changing and relativism of culture and morality depending on the environment and worldview of different people. I argue that LGBTQ+ should be regarded as criminal by everyone from a sociological, anthropological, scientific and rational point of view.
From a sociological perspective, first, the family is the bedrock and continuity of the society and by extension every nation. Second, procreation is central to the continuity of the human family system. That is, when procreation ceases, the family system will come to a halt or standstill. Article 18(1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights quoted by the bill recognizes this fact that “The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the state, which shall take care of its physical health and morals.”
Anthropologically, LGBTQ+ practices pose a threat or danger to the continuous survival of the human race on this planet. The human race will fast become endangered species if homosexuality is allowed to spread like a pandemic. All we need to do is to give ourselves about 100years from now for the current and young generation, and without procreation, the entire human race will become extinct.
There is no scientific medium to achieve procreation from strict same sex sexual relationships. All the scientific mechanisms for homosexual parents require a donor from the opposite sex even including in Vitro fertilization (IVF). By implication, if same sex relations is the only option available, it’ll be scientifically impossible to obtain procreation which is the bedrock in sustaining the continuum of the human family and the society. Science must provide a legitimate means of ensuring procreation strictly from same sex couples without associated complications.
Finally, we can rationally conclude that any act, practice or choice that can result in the extermination of the entire human race is criminal. Whether some people will make this choice or not is logically irrelevant. This is because any choice available to a person that can result in the extinction of a group of people or the entire human race, from a rational perspective, cannot be anything less than criminal punishable by law, including the mere intention to exercise that choice. No law in the world will countenance on ethnic cleansing let alone human cleansing that the practice can potentially lead to. For the fact that LGBTQ+ practices if accepted by the entire human race, has in it the inherent ability of causing the extinction of the human race, justifies why the Creator of humanity sees it as abomination. Thus, the abomination mentioned here stems from what the act can lead to from a sociological, anthropological, scientific and rational point of view.
Anti-LGBTQ+ and Academic Freedom
This is a mere attempt to incite emotions and it’s without basis. There is no where in the bill that undermines academic freedom. An academic research on any topical issue may have a variety of objectives. For instance, it may seek to study the evolvement or historical development of an issue; or the factors that cause a certain phenomenon including associated recommendations; or even the perspectives of people regarding that issue. If there is no clear objective to “aid, facilitate, encourage, or promote — an act that undermines the proper human sexual rights and Ghanaian family values” (p.26), the academic work will be deemed as legitimate. If on the other hand, there is an identification of an intention to promote a criminal act in a research work such as murder, robbery, theft rape, including LGBTQ+ practices, the matter will be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction for the determination of such intention or otherwise and associated appropriate sanctions. There is therefore a legal procedure to deal with this.
In summary, I have pointed out that Ghana’s Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill seeks to rationally criminalizes such unnatural sexual acts that threaten the survival of the human race and therefore, there is no basis for the call for freedom of association for a criminal act. Also, the issue regarding an attack on freedom of speech, and academic freedom is unwarranted in the face of the proposed law. It’s rather a mere attempt to incite passions and raise public and academic sympathy against the Bill. Therefore, the proposed law should be embraced as progressive, sociologically and scientifically rational for the sustenance of the human family system; and any other modification of the bill to achieve the above intended results is mostly welcome. In my next episode, I’ll deal with the so-called term ‘sexual orientation’: whether it’s a lifestyle choice or biological.
The Writer is Master of Divinity Candidate @ Adventist University of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
Pastor, Standard Bearers Ministries
“Lift up a standard for the people” – Isaiah 61:10
Email: [email protected]