IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS – Nana Oye Lithur’s False Alarm

The surest guarantee for evil to thrive is for good people to sit unconcerned.

Edmund burke

The 1992 Constitution of the republic of Ghana has made extensive provisions for the protection of fundamental human rights. The framers of the Constitution, and I believe every Ghanaian of sound conscience, could not take for granted, the rights to life, personal liberty, free expression, respect for dignity, among others. Indeed, any society that refuses to recognize and protect these rights denounces the very foundation upon which it stands. Needless to say, such a society sits on a social time bomb.

It is instructive, nevertheless, to point out that in the quest to recognise and protect these rights, there is a need to maintain some symbiotic balance and modicum of responsibility. We must not lose sight of the fact that a society, as one scholar has noted, is made up of individuals of different dispositions and orientations, guided by shared patterns of behavior structured around their basic and mutual needs. In a wider sense, inasmuch as society is supposed to provide the conditions necessary for the survival of the individual, the latter is also expected to fashion his or her life along societal approbation.

Thus, to the extent that the denial of a particular right does not threaten one’s right to life if a society decides against that right for the general good, the individual or minority is not expected to cry foul. After all, human rights are, consciously or unconsciously, supposed to be a negotiated package. In other words, rights have limits. The Constitution supports the above assertion when it provides in Article 12(2) that “every person in Ghana, whatever race, place of origin, political opinion, colour, religion, creed or gender shall be entitled to the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the individual contained in this Chapter but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest.” (emphasis mine)

From the foregoing, as far as society (Ghana) sees its survival as crucial – and who can vouch that it will not – it will continue to frown on deviants, like armed robbers, rapists and homosexuals, whose activities debase the moral bases of society and threaten its survival.

This is why I was shocked, and even abashed, at Nana Oye Lithur’s outburst for homosexuals to be accorded respect, on the flimsy reason that they are also entitled to rights. In the said story, published in the Friday, June 18th ,2010 edition of the Daily Graphic, the human rights lawyer, described by many as “an outspoken champion of human rights” was reported to have stated, among others, that “I think we should try and understand the situation. If we don’t discuss it as a country, how do we overcome the problem?”Perhaps such a discussion, if society would countenance it, should also feature representatives of armed robbers, rapists, murderers, kleptomaniacs and any deviant or criminal group in order to make it holistic in character.

Homosexuality
Homosexuality, gay or lesbian, is as old as Adam. However, for obvious reasons, which Nana Oye and other human rights advocates have refused to acknowledge, all societies save a negligible few, frown on homosexuality, especially when the stakes have been high. And how high have the stakes been? Homosexuality has been, and will continue to be a threat to the sanctity of morals in society; it impacts negatively on health, offends well known religions etc.

Here in Ghana and in Africa, our condemnation of this unnatural sexual act is grounded on and strengthened by our experiences over time. We must not hasten to throw away folkways and mores that have taken centuries to grow, especially when there is no evidence that they are inimical to our present circumstances.

Nana Oye’s argument that the unnatural carnal knowledge forbidden under the nation’s Criminal Code could not necessarily be considered as homosexuality because heterosexuals could also engage in unnatural carnal knowledge, misses the point. That Albert Einstein unknowingly contributed to the invention of the atomic bomb does not mean that his theory of Relativity is false (i.e.: E ≠ mc2).Is Nana Oye by any means suggesting that upon a proper interpretation of the said provision, homosexuality cannot be considered as an example of unnatural carnal knowledge?

Advocates like Nana Oye should not, in the end, promote the perpetuation of wrongs they purport to speak against. For, if an abominable act like homosexuality should be condoned on the basis of human rights, then the argument could also be made that armed robbers should also be allowed to rob the excessively rich members of society of their excess wealth for redistribution in order to give meaning to equality and equity as provided for by the Constitution.

Similarly, the day when kleptomaniacs would petition parliament to amend the law in order to pave the way for them to practise their god-given talent of stealing would not be far. I have not mentioned prostitutes and rapists because I refuse to offend the conscience of right-thinking members of our dear country. If such a free-for-all situation would not threaten the very existence of this country then I doubt whether I exist.

Homosexuality and Health
In his article published in the Thursday, July 8, 2010 edition of the Daily Graphic, Dr. Yao Lotsu accordingly notes that the “victim” of homosexuality or “this sexual assault invariable (sic) ends up with torn anus, leading to weakness in the sphincter muscle”. Gosh! Dr. Lotsu discerns not one, but many repercussions. He cautions that “the consequence is faecal incontinence whereby the person loses the ability to hold the toilet when it arrives. He soils himself helplessly.” In other words, we need to import more diapers for our children and our homosexual brethren.

If homosexuality reduces the human being to the level of a low animal, as Dr. Lotsu vividly portrays, then wherein lies the essence of the right for which Nana Oye and others are pimping as lead advocates? The so-called advocates usually expand on the supposition that homosexuality could be a natural consequence of one’s sexual orientation. Thus, we should not force homosexuals to subdue an urge over which they have no control, they contend. Granted that this is true, advocates need not worry because this disorder is curable. According to Dr. Kofi Nutakpor, a medical practitioner with the 37 Military Hospital, “there are techniques and method to treat this disorder.” (See Daily Graphic of June 21st, 2010).

Needless to say, one would expect that rather than calling on society to give homosexuals enough rope to hang themselves, human rights advocates would spearhead the campaign for easy access to corrective facilities in order to cure these sexual deviants.

Homosexuality and the Family
The uniqueness of the Ghanaian or African society is its ability to hold together its communal or family relations. Homosexuality obviously threatens the family institution as it not only fails to procreate and perpetuate the family line but also its practitioners set very bad example for children to follow. When society fails to maintain and strengthen the bonds of continuity and unity, the first casualty is naturally, its peace and survival.

According to the late eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitrim Sorokin, cited in the work of Robert Knight, “studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents” revealed that “virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no longer accorded premier status”. In other words, “as marriage and families also disintegrate, the social restraints learned in families also disintegrate. Chaos results, and chaos ushers in tyrants who promise order by any means”. The cynics would be quick to point out that given the almost negligible number of homosexuals here in Ghana, the picture painted by Sorokin would in our specific circumstances, be a remote possibility.

This, of course, is a strange line of argument that fails to recognize the collateral and cumulative damage of the phenomenon. The argument also ignores the fact that official endorsement of homosexuality in Ghana will make the country a safe ground for homosexuals elsewhere across the globe. Remember their audacious attempt to hold an international conference here some a few years ago?

Religion and Homosexuality
Ghana is a secular state; any debate for or against a phenomenon should, therefore, not cite religion as a frame of reference, so the argument runs. Exponents of this view, however, gloss over the fact that the average Ghanaian is incurably religious. Evidence abounds that over 90% of Ghanaians believe in one religious creed or the other. Any attempt at detaching our lives from religion or the supernatural would therefore be, to quote Orwell, a “sentimental archaism.” This is why I now turn to religion for some direction.

All recognised religions condemn homosexuality in no uncertain terms. The Bible states in Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Qu’ran and the Bible give similar accounts of what befell Sodom and Gomorrah as a result of their homosexual acts. The Qu’ran recounts in Chapter11:81-83 “….. When our command came, We turned their cities down and rained down on them stones of hard baked clay; piled on top of one another in layers….”

To those who usually refer to this story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a myth I refer you to the BBC story published on Saturday 18th August, 2001 entitled, “Scientists uncover Sodom’s Fiery End”. Although Dr. Graham Harris, the British geologist who led the discovery team, would attribute the disaster to a natural occurrence rather than the wrath of a supernatural being, the fact that the disaster is calculated to have taken place at precisely the period covered by Qur’anic and Biblical accounts is a curious coincidence indeed. So, if the majority of Ghanaians believe that endorsing homosexuality could attract the wrath of God, are they also not entitled to the right of resistance?

Advocacy, Rights and Globalisation
That modern human rights advocates like Nana Oye Lithur have contributed immensely towards improving the quality of life of the underprivileged is not in doubt. I regret to state, however, that sometimes in their anxiety to be heard, the issues get the better of these advocates and so they over simplify the facts.

Some have even argued that this sorry state of affairs could be attributed to the fact that there is a scramble among human rights advocates to catch the eye of sponsors in the western world. It lies beyond this article to give a detailed expose on the veracity or otherwise of this claim. Suffice to say, nevertheless, that it appears to me that modern day advocacy for human rights is, regrettably, heading for a day when it will be considered so trite and drab to be taken seriously. This is especially so when advocates fail to realize that sometimes the rights they seek, when granted could produce people less human to be counted as Ghanaians. It is good to recognize freedom of association, of religion, of (responsible) speech, among others but such rights should be managed in order that the people would not be extravaggantly loose.

On the specific issue of globalization, I think that it is about time we refused to accept every garbage that the wind of globalization blows in our direction. The fact that a phenomenon is practised elsewhere is not evidence whatsoever that it must ipso facto be practised in Ghana. As someone has noted, foreign culture must “melt” into African culture and “find interpretable entry points into the cultural familiarities of the people” if it must resonate with them and serve the public interest.

Conclusion
I cannot prevent people from satisfying their sexual desire, so far as they do not have it in public to frighten children and animals. I am, however, against homosexuality. The phenomenon has never been encouraged in any civilized society. By all means let us encourage respect for the right to life, food and shelter, education, (responsible) speech, religion etc. While at it, we must also endeavour to distinguish between rights and abuse of rights. The advice by the Daily Graphic is very apt here: “We wish to counsel our compatriot human rights activists that while it is all right to exercise their professional duty….they nevertheless must be mindful of the need to strike a healthy balance between what they perceive as the rights of homosexuals, on the one hand, and the values, interests and aspirations of the larger masses of our society…”

As for our learned lawyer Nana Oye Lithur, I challenge her to go to court one of these days as counsel for the plaintiff or defendant, dressed in kente trousers with kaba to match, in the name of the right to promote made in Ghana goods, proper ventilation under the scorching Ghanaian sun, or right to African identity, for that matter.