PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA

Opiyo Oloya

DEAR Mr Martin Omagol, Commissioner for Special Needs Education, Guidance and Counseling. Last week, you were quoted by the media as urging headteachers to do whatever it takes to squash homosexuality in Uganda secondary schools.

“We have received reports that homosexuality is on the increase in our schools. It is up to the headteachers to act swiftly and stop this evil from spreading further,” you reportedly told headteachers at Kyambogo College School.

Two issues arise from your statement. First, your statement suggests that homosexuality is like the common cold that is passed on from one person to another.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Though debate about the cause of homosexuality continues, scientists and social theorists tend to agree that nobody chooses to be homosexual. Available data from the US, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere in Europe tend to place the homosexual population between 3-8% of the total population. Here, in North America where gays live and work alongside heterosexuals, the gay population remains steady. You don’t see young people suddenly catching the “homosexual disease” simply by interacting with homosexuals. In other words, without data that suggest increase of homosexuality in Uganda schools, you are merely fanning homophobia.

Secondly, by crying that the sky is falling and we must do something about it, you are perpetuating the stereotypical notion of homosexuals as social deviants who must be stamped out. This has generally been the attitude elsewhere in Africa where homophobia is very strong. For example, some of the loudest protests over the ordination of openly gay Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire last October came from Africa.

Hardliners like Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, which has some 17.5 million Anglicans, stopped short of calling for an open split in the Anglican Church. The Uganda Anglican Church officially dissociated itself from the ordination of Bishop Robinson.

However, despite vocal opposition from the continent against homosexuals, the battle over gay rights is being framed in the West as a human rights issue. Mr Omagol, the question is no longer whether homosexuals should exist at all, but whether homosexuals should enjoy the same rights and privileges as other citizens.

In other words, being gay is a non-issue, but rather the issue is on what rights and privileges should be given to homosexuals. So far, the courts in western democracies have spoken very simply-give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else. Just last week, New York State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people — and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

Here in Canada, the battle front is now defined on the issue of gay marriage. Early last week, Canadian Minister for Justice Irwin Cotler introduced in the House of Commons the Civil Marriage Act, which will extend legal capacity for Civil Marriage to homosexual couples while respecting religious freedom. Churches will have the rights to refuse to marry gays.

Needless to say, Canadians are split almost in half on the issue of gay marriage. Led by churches, those opposed to homosexual marriage argue that there is a moral obligation to maintain the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and woman. As stated by Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Toronto, in an open letter to the Prime Minister that was read at masses two weeks ago, “The conjugal partnership of a man and a woman is the beginning and basis of human society, and the family is the first and vital cell of society. Tampering with marriage and the family poses significant social risks.”

On the other side of the argument are those who see the extension of marriage to homosexuals as a test of commitments to human rights. Canadian for Equal Marriage, a grassroots organisation supporting the legislation calls the proposed legislation an “historic moment” for Canada. It urges its members to target Members of Parliament who are undecided whether to vote for or against the bill. So far, 139 MPs have stated publicly that they intend to vote in favour of the legislation, 118 MPs would vote against the legislation, while 49 are undecided. To become law, the bill needs the support of 154 MPs.

Essentially, by focusing debate on the protection of the rights of every citizen including homosexuals under the law, western society has undercut the African position of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). In this sense, the debate is reminiscent of an earlier one when century-old African tradition of circumcision was framed in the West as genital mutilation and therefore a human-rights issue.

Today, many African countries have quietly accepted that definition and worked toward abolishing circumcision. In a similar light, when viewed as a question of human rights in a democracy, as it should be, the strong view taken against homosexuals (albeit shared by the majority in Uganda) is increasingly indefensible.

The point, Mr Omagol, is that as signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Uganda agrees to uphold Article 2 which states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” To paraphrase French writer Voltaire: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca