Gayism neither ‘unAfrican’ nor always criminal

The furore following the recent Supreme Court decision on the LGBTQ+ community’s right of association has seen the resurfacing of an old narrative: That gayism is ‘unAfrican’. This can mean one of two things: That same-sex relations we non-existent in ancient Africa, or that they were frowned upon.

The first statement is manifestly wrong; there is documented evidence of homosexuality in pre-colonial Eritrea, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Cameroon. The second assertion is only partly true. The continent has nurtured a bewildering mosaic of cultures, norms and practices.

Some of these traditions allowed same-sex relations, some forbade it. Also, almost everything is modern-day Africa is ‘unafrican’, including our names, food, clothing, even the very language in which we are having this debate.

Heavy weather has also been made around gayism’s perceived criminal status. If a court allows gays to associate, the argument goes, what is stopping other ‘criminals’ from demanding the right as well? Here, there is an obfuscation of facts.

Indecent practices

Homosexuals are, by definition, persons sexually or romantically attracted to others of the same gender. The Penal Code does not prohibit such attraction, nor does it forbid same-sex romantic bonds. What is criminalised is ‘carnal knowledge against the order of nature’ and ‘indecent practices between males’ (‘indecent’ practices between heterosexual couples or females are, apparently, allowed).

These injunctions are vague and practically unenforceable, which why there have been only two known anti-gay prosecutions in the past decade.

Let those upset by the apex court’s ruling articulate the real reason behind their agitation.

Mr Arori is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. [email protected].