Prof. Wole Soyinka
Let us go back a little, nearly a year ago, to that earlier attempt to
interfere in, and legislate on sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Profiting from that experience, I would like to caution – yet again -
that it is high time we learnt to ignore what we conveniently designate
and react to as ‘foreign interference’. By now, we should be able to
restrict ourselves to the a priori position that, as rational beings, we
make pronouncements on choices of ethical directions from our own
collective and/or majority will, independent of what is described as
‘external dictation’. The noisome emissions that surged from a handful
of foreign governments last year should not be permitted to obscure the
fundamental issue of the right to private choices of the free, adult
citizen in any land – Asian, African, European etc. Those external
responses were of such a nature - hysterical, hypocritical and
disproportionate – that, speaking for myself at least, I could only
wonder if they had not been generated by a desperate need for
distraction away from the economic crisis that confronted, at that very
time, those parts of the world.
Hopefully, the majority of Nigerians have also learnt to sniff out
ploys of legislative distraction within the nation. At that initial
attempt to cloak prurience in legislative watchfulness, the timing of
the removal of the oil subsidy was coincident with a sudden obsession
with homosexual and lesbian conduct. Was this truly an accident of
timing? And now? Attempting to mobilize public sentiment against what
many, admittedly, do consider deviant sexual conduct certainly takes
attention away from the crumbling of society and the failures of
governance in multiple directions. These range from minimal
infrastructural expectations to mind-boggling escalation of corrupt
practices in high places, and the basic issue of security in day-to-day
existence of the populace as it affects high and low, affluent or
impoverished, old and young, regardless of profession or records of
service to Nigerian humanity.
But, to begin with, I implore all those who boast the capacity for
reason: let us separate two distinct, albeit related issues within that
one bill tabled before our legislatures. One issue is: homosexual
practice; the other, same-sex marriage. I first became aware of, and
alarmed by, the conflation of the two – quite deliberate in most cases -
when, after a lecture at the University of Technology, Calabar, a year
ago, I advised the legislators to mind the numerous, and urgent
businesses for which they were elected, and take their noses out of
sexual practices between consenting adults. Either deliberately – as I
have already indicated – or thanks to the now familiar deficiency in
listening that sadly characterizes Nigerian responses to public
pronouncements, the main reactions were unleashed against something I
had not even commented upon, which was: same-sex marriage. With the now
confirmed outing of this bill however, the law-makers have served
notice that their monitoring zeal is intended at nothing less than the
right of state interference in private lives, especially in personal
relations of the most intimate kind. This is the warning shot of
legislative fascism. It has no place in a democracy.
Basically, such legislations constitute improper encroachment on
personal lives, leaving the door wide open for all forms of social
persecution, intimidation and even – as we know very well in this
society – incitement to violence against targeted individuals, including
lynching. Next, as several nations all over the world have come to
acknowledge after centuries of blindness and hideous injustice, such
state interventions glorify ignorance of the science of the human body,
and contribute to the elevation of limited or zero knowledge on any
subject to the altar of the morally sacrosanct.
The biological truth is this: some are born with imprecise gender
definition, even when they have sexual organs that appear to define them
male or female. Years, indeed decades, of scientific research have gone
into this, so what is needed is understanding and acceptance, not
emotionalism and the championing of ‘moral’ or ‘traditional’ claims.
Let us take the first. For those who base their position on moralities
extracted from received scriptures, permit me to state bluntly that
articles of faith are no substitute for scientific verities, no matter
how passionately such faiths are embraced or espoused, or for how long.
In any case, faith is also a very private matter, so what we have here
is simply one private plaintiff, a ‘conscientious objector’, attempting
to lord it over the rights of another private entity, this time one that
yields to sexual impulses in obedience to Biological Scriptures. Now,
which one should lay claim to precedence?
We must make up our minds where we belong. We must choose either to
create a society that is based on secular principles, or else surrender
ourselves to the authority of - no matter whose - theocratic claims.
What this implicates is that the next time a woman is sentenced to be
buried live in the ground and stoned to death on the authority of one
set of scriptures, other scripture adherents must learn to hold their
peace and allow such ‘laws’ to run their course. The full implications
of either position leave no room for fence-sitting. The national train
must run either on secular rails or derail at multiple theocratic
switches. No theology can be privileged over another in the running of
society. This means, theology and its derivates cannot be privileged
over material reality and its derivatives.
The science of the body is not limited to issues of consenting adults
alone. It is what guides the making of laws in rational societies, what
makes the law frown decisively on sexual relations with the under-aged,
and spells out just what the law means by ‘underage’ in specific years
of existence. Adult males earn several years in prison for sexual
relations with the under aged because scientific knowledge has
identified – beyond argument – the often irreparable damage that is done
to a pre-pubescent body through sexual penetration by males. Society
therefore protects the potential victim. Has an adult homosexual run to
the law for protection in any society we know of? Only where they have
been, or are in danger of becoming victims of rape – and there, the law
is firmly on their side. Otherwise, the law should have no interest
whatsoever in any form of consensual sexual conduct between adults.
So far, we have only addressed the issue of the homosexual act itself
as it should concern – or should not – a nation’s legislatures. Let us
now turn to the related problem of same-sex marriages. My interest is
not – as a hysterical prelate, among others, tried to over-simplify in
his reaction to my observation in Calabar – it is not whether or not
homosexual marriages should be permitted or banned. Let us take it step
by step.
The issue, to start with, is - ‘criminalisation’! Perhaps such
marriages exist in Nigeria – I am not aware of them. But we do know that
homosexual liaisons exist. Are they granted the status of marriage? Not
that I am aware of. Was there a threat somewhere that this might soon
happen? Are they a menace to society? Again, all this is shrouded under
legislative mystery. No case, to the best of my knowledge, has been
brought to public notice where a court registry has been compelled to
register same-sex marriages. No priest has been hauled up so far for
sanctifying such a marriage. Always open to debate is the right of
institutions (civil or state) to be part of the formal mechanisms for
pledges that adults undertake in their relations with one another.
Priests – of any religious adherence – remain free to refuse to become
involved in the ceremonies of such associations. Individuals cannot be
compelled to endorse such conduct. It remains their right to privately
ostracize or embrace such liaisons – formal or informal.
The state however overreaches itself where it moves to criminalize
them. Biology takes precedence over ‘moral’ sentiment. Physiological
compositions are increasingly held responsible for a number of mental
and/or physical predispositions. Only in the past few decades was
schizophrenia successfully tracked backwards to – among other causes -
the contraction by mothers of some forms of ailment during pregnancy, as
well as to genetic transmission. We should learn to listen wherever the
voice of the empirical can be called upon to testify in human conduct.
On the ‘moralists‘, we urge a sense of proportion, and a turn towards
objectivity. Yes, a society without moral signposts is only a glorified
arena of brute instincts. Nonetheless, morality is far too often mired
in subjectivity, sometimes touted as ‘revelation’, erected on untested
foundations, increasingly subject to mass hysteria and manipulation.
Morality therefore – we must re-emphasize - when applied to the private
realm of the human body, must take second place to biology - morality
either as derived from cultural usage or religious givens. We are
speaking of – plain biological human composition, over which no
individual has any control whatsoever. No individual was responsible for
his or her birth, for emerging as a precocious being, a budding genius,
or handicapped - either mentally or physiologically. Those who evoke
‘morality’ so loosely should take care that they do not keep company
with theocratic warlords like al-Shabaab of Somalia, who instituted
amputation at the wrist for anyone found guilty of the ‘immoral’ act of
shaking hands with a fellow human being of the opposite sex!
Permit me to address some of the anxieties – publicly addressed or not –
that I happen to have encountered. No one denies the perverse agency of
‘peer pressure’ in certain societies – or institutions - where
homosexuality is considered ‘fashionable’, or even becomes a membership
card for advancement in some professions. It is also the admissible
right of the individual to experience and express disgust at the mere
thought of homosexual conduct: the complement, incidentally, also
obtains among some homosexuals with regard to heterosexual practice. I
have encountered some who declare that the very thought of heterosexual
act makes them sick. Also, there exist the bi-sexual individuals who
live and die at ease – or with resignation - with their complex anatomy.
None of these tendencies justifies criminalization.
The heterosexual – or ‘straight’, to use that tendentious expression -
minds his or her business like the rest. Laws, if any are promulgated in
these cases, should be towards the protection of the vulnerable in
society, vulnerable from whatever cause, including deviations from the
sexuality of the majority genders. Non-consensual conduct is a different
matter, or coercion, such as rape or other forms of sexual abuse, and
these apply both to the homosexual and the heterosexual. I have had
occasion to intervene in boarding schools to demand protection for some
young pupils whose lives were bedeviled by sexual harassment from their
senior colleagues. Their teachers turned a deaf ear to the victims’
complaints to an extent that virtually amounted to connivance. Now that
is one area against which legislators might usefully want to turn their
legislative ire – such teachers deserve to be brutally purged from their
positions and made to face prosecution.
I shall be remiss if I do not also to address the appalling evidence of
hypocrisy among the law makers. New laws are being proposed for private
conduct that has never constituted a danger to the fabric of society.
By contrast, the notorious violation of existing laws by a member of the
law-making fraternity was rendered a non-event by a conspiratorial
silence, amounting to connivance and enthronement of impunity.
A former governor and present Senator violated the laws of two lands –
Egypt and Nigeria – through his sexual behaviour. Serial paedophilia and
cross-border sex trafficking are criminalized near universally. Laws
for the protection of minors are rigorously enforced in civilized
societies. On that, and allied issues, the law-making conclaves of wise
men and women remained mute or conciliatory. An opportunity to enforce
the existing laws in high places as a high profile deterrent to others
was simply discarded. No new laws have been proposed, not even as a sop
to outraged public conscience, to re-criminalize such acts, yet the
legislatures take time off to make laws that criminalize private conduct
that have not constituted a threat to the well-being of the vulnerable
in society.
Is it too much to ask that our legislators cool their moral ardour for a
study period during which they seek to understand a phenomenon that
many hold abhorrent? (Please note: this is not intended as yet another
incentive to undertake expensive study tours around the world – the
relevant publications are available everywhere.) If there are
scientific explanations for homosexual conduct - and these have been
expounded in profusion - then a process of education is called for,
enabling a more empathetic response to what appears an aberration to the
majority. That it appears an aberration to some does not however make
it immoral or socially subversive. And foreign interventionists should –
let me repeat - at least exercise a sense of proportion, recalling that
even within their own societies, such issues are still up for debate,
with see-saw decisions between state and federal courts – examples
include the United States - right up to the present.
The high moral grounds that those nations attempt to occupy by hurling
threats of sanctions etc etc. merely strike one as extreme cases of
hypocrisy, unmindful of their own scriptural injunctions that urge:
‘Physician, heal thyself ”
No comments:
Post a Comment