Uganda, the Pearl of Africa, Gay is Human Wrong, not Human Rights

 In the book “My African Journey”, Winston Churchill wrote his trip to Uganda in 1907. He wrote that “for Magnificence, for variety of form and color, for profusion of brilliant life—bird, insect, reptile, beast–for vast scale—Uganda is truly “the pearl of Africa”. He was enthused about the diversity of the biological species in the nation. However, the Uganda government does not allow its citizens to be as diverse as the natural species. While they are making efforts to retain the magnificence and diversity of the species, they are also making efforts to eliminate the diversity of citizens. 

A Traceback:

Uganda, as one of the most homophobic nations on earth, has never changed its position. The GBGR score kept constant at an average of 10.2% from 2011 to 2019. Regardless of its current low score, the history of homophobia in Uganda can be traced back to its colonial history. When it was under British colonial rule, the Penal Code Act 1950 stated that same-sex marriage is prohibited by law and will be committed as felonies. 

(Screenshots from https://www.fandmglobalbarometers.org/countries/uganda/)

After Uganda declared its independence, existing law of the Ugandan penal code, penalizes "carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature" with imprisonment of up to 14 years, but it was rarely enforced. However, the situation remain negative. As early as 2006, the magazine Red Pepper published a “hit list” of allegedly homosexual men, including individuals who have not identified themselves as gay. Several of those individuals named reported that they had suffered from subsequent harassment and ostracism. The magazine continues to publish the list until 2014.

(Image from https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-26345304)

 Cleo, who was outed by Red Pepper, as Uganda’s first transgender woman to openly transition, was forced to flee to other countries to avoid attacks and possible arrest. Her story was documented by von Wallström, who documented the life of Cleo, and her partner,  being marginalized and persecuted living in a country that is hostile to homosexuality. 

 “In my dreams, my body decays, my skin crumbles and falls away. Beneath I am feminine and free. But I step out of my dream, I wake to this body, and carry on through hell.”

(Image from IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5128790/)

Predecessor：

In 2009, Member of parliament David Bahati submitted the Anti-Homosexual bill, which later is named the “kill the gay” bill, further broadening the criminalization of same-sex relationships in Uganda. The bill proclaims that the objectives are to

 

“ prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family” and “prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality”(2009). 

It also set provisions for “aggravated homosexuality”, indicating that offenders who are HIV-positive and have intercourse with people of the same sex whether consensual or nonconsensual, as well as those who have sex with juveniles, could be sentenced to the death penalty. The result was that this pernicious bill won the majority of support from the parliament. Parliament members view anti-gay stances as “expected and politically beneficial”(Englander, 2011). 

"Certain provisions in this bill are illegal; they are also immoral," said Kate Sheill, Amnesty International's expert on sexual rights. "They criminalize a sector of society for being who they are, when what the government should be doing instead is protecting them from discrimination and abuse."

In addition, the bill potentially abets social persecution of homosexual groups, sparking national wide homophobia. Media have made public accusations against those they believe to be gay or lesbian. The most extreme case would be that, later in 2010, another Uganda publication institution Rolling Stone published an article titled "100 Pictures of Uganda's Top Homos Leak” to call upon boycotting homosexuals. The publication included at least 100 homosexuals in Uganda with their photos and names, which is absolutely a violation of personal privacy and violation of human rights. The publication also later lead to the death of David Kato, an activist in Uganda, outed in the article, who was murdered in his home by an intruder. 

(Image from https://chapterfouruganda.org/timelines/anti-homosexuality-bill-timeline/rolling-stone-tabloid-publishes-full-names-100-allegedly) 

Even if the bill led to strong public discontent, and it was the serious violation of the protection of privacy, the officials ignore that. Later in 2014, President Yoweri Museveni signed the bill. Anti-homosexuality was officially legitimated in the country. According to the government, his decision was based on a report by "medical experts" who said that, "homosexuality is deviant from social norms". Furthermore, the act also criminalizes a person who "aids, abets, counsels, or procures another to engage in an act of homosexuality". In general, the government attempt to eradicate almost everything associated with homosexuality. The 2014 Act is not the end, but a start. The Uganda lawmakers want more.

What is happening now?

 Now, on March 9, 2023, Asuman Basalirwa, a member of parliament, introduced the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Parliament, as an amendment to the 2014 Anti-homosexual Act. The bill is considered one of the toughest pieces of anti-gay legislation in Africa. Provisions in the bill include the following elements but not limit to: 

1. Reinforcement of imprisonment posed to homosexuality, “aggravated homosexuality” will lead to the death penalty. 

2. LGBTQ+ people will be sentenced to up to ten years in prison for disclosing their identity or touching someone with homosexual intent. 

3. People, publicity, and any kind of social platforms, in support or promotion related to homosexuality will be imprisoned. 

4. Property owners whose premises are being utilized as a place for any homosexual acts will be at risk of imprisonment. 

The speaker of the parliament stated the reason as “ For us it's about our morals and our culture. And I want to urge members of parliament, please don't get intimidated. Never get intimidated, we are doing all of this for humanity”. 

This house will continue to pass laws that recognize, protect and safeguard the sovereignty, morals and cultures of this country,” Anita Annet Among, the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, said after legislators finished voting

Human Rights Watch said the new legislation was "a revised and more egregious version" of the 2014 bill. Now, even though it is in the 20th century, people are at risk of being in jail for self-identify as gay, lesbian, or transgender. It also makes it an offense to “touch another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” and the “promotion of homosexuality.” In addition, the law will effectively declare all same-sex conduct as non-consensual regardless of factually consensual for both parties. If the law is passed, sexual and gender identity that is “contrary to the binary categories of male and female”  will be further criminalized on the basis of its worse situation. 

After the passing of the 2014 bill, LGBTQ+ people in Uganda suffered a noticeable increase in arbitrary arrests, police abuse and extortion, unemployment, evictions, and homelessness. The bill is now awaiting the president’s signature. The future of the LGBTQ+ community, as a vulnerable minority group in Uganda, cannot be pictured. The new bill will further institutionalize repressive acts, discrimination, and hatred against homosexual groups within the country.  In addition, the government has already violated many of the basic human rights of Ugandans: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, equity, freedom from discrimination, and most importantly, the right of being who they are. The bill, again, as a signal of increased repression, also raises the question of how can LGBTQ+ community, as well as other vulnerable groups, survive in Uganda. 

Ugandans have already sacrificed many of their rights under government repression. Nations are supposed to protect the basic human rights of their citizens. We are still in hope that the international community can pressure the president not to sign the bill, and provide necessary asylum for the vulnerable groups being persecuted.

(Ugandan activists attend a conference to promote homosexuals’ rights, in Kampala, Uganda, February 14, 2010. © 2010 Benedicte Desrus/Sipa Press via AP Images)

                                                               "Aluta Continua"

Reference 

Amnesty International. (n.d.). Uganda: Anti-homosexuality Bill passed in Parliament. Retrieved March 24, 2023, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/afr590042013en.pdf 

Athumani, H. (2023, March 10). Ugandan Parliament introduces new Anti-Homosexuality Bill. VOA. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.voanews.com/a/ugandan-parliament-introduces-new-anti-homosexuality-bill-/6999149.html 

Bill No. 3 the anti-homosexuality bill - jurist.org. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2023, from https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/03/Anti-Homosexuality-Bill-2023.pdf 

Churchill, W. (n.d.). My African journey.

 Englander, D. (2011). Protecting the human rights of LGBT people in Uganda in the wake of Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill, 2009. Emory International Law Review, 25(3), 1263-1316. 

Harrison, N. (2016). A transgender love story in The shadows of uganda. The Lancet, 388(10057), 2229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32069-4 

Oliver, M. (2019). Uganda's anti-homosexuality Bill. Routledge International Handbook of Heterosexualities Studies, 316–325. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440731-20 

Uganda: 'anti-homosexuality' bill threatens liberties and human rights defenders. Human Rights Watch. (2020, October 28). Retrieved March 20, 2023, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/10/15/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-threatens-liberties-and-human-rights-defenders 

Uganda's Parliament threatens to criminalize homosexuality. Human Rights Watch. (2023, March 7). Retrieved March 20, 2023, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/06/ugandas-parliament-threatens-criminalize-homosexuality

Examining LGBTQ+ Human Rights in Palestine and the Occupied Territories

On October 7, 2022, the severed head and decapitated body of 25 year-old Ahmad Abu Murkhiyeh was found in the city of Hebron in the West Bank.

Abu Murkhiyeh was found near his family home, nestled in a conservative community which he tried to escape from two years prior. After his death, Israel provided a shaped narrative on his story, citing the Palestinian territories. Rita Petrenko, the founder of Al Bait Al Mokhtalef, an Israeli organization for Arab gay rights, recalled meeting Abu Murkiyeh and depicted a picture of how he was treated.

Abu Murkhiyeh was banned from working until last July when Israel finally began granting work permits to Palestinians who have sought refuge due to violence and persecution for their sexual orientation. While his story has been co-opted by several pro-Israeli activist groups, the discourse following his death depicts a picture of the current state of LGBTQ+ rights and activism in the West Bank.

Currently, nearly 92% of the population in the West Bank identifies as Muslim while the remaining identifies as Arab Christian. Homosexuality is still a taboo topic in the region and is often brushed aside in discourse, replaced by conversations pertaining to the relative Palestinian struggle. While we can all agree that LGBTQ+ rights are human rights, first and foremost, and must be part of the discussion no matter the circumstance, it is imperative to contextualize the status of this conversation in the events occurring within the region. As Palestinians are being uprooted from their homes, forced to flee and seek refuge in neighboring countries, the discourse regarding homosexuality is pushed to the back burner which is incredibly dangerous for the LGBTQ+ population within the region.

Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under international law, but Israel continues to expand them, without criticism or repercussions from the international community. Palestinians living in these areas face regular harassment and violence from settlers, and their homes and property are often destroyed. Additionally, Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories face discrimination in various forms, including restrictions on their freedom of movement, unequal access to services such as healthcare and education, and discrimination in employment and housing as well as restrictions on practicing their religion freely. Even during Ramadan, we can see the restrictions imposed on Palestinians to practice their religion freely, including restricting their access to Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holiest month of the year.

As we develop an understanding of the current state of Palestinian rights, we can begin to understand the life of the LGBTQ+ community in Palestine and how the occupation has affected their livelihood. Rhetoric employed by the international community has an immense impact on the way Palestine is perceived internationally and has implications for foreign assistance. Pinkwashing can be defined as the intentional misrepresentation of human rights through an allusion of the promotion of LGBTQ+ rights as evidence of democracy. Often utilized by Israel in promoting anti-Palestinian rhetoric, it portrays a dishonest view of the current status of LGBTQ+ rights. 

This connects to a broader issue of Israel, as well as other countries, exploiting the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in order to gain political gain while hiding their oppressive policies in violation of international law against Palestinians. The right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu appropriated LGBTQ+ rights to advance its own agendas against Iran and the Palestinian Territories at the United Nations, depicting a picture of Israel as a gay-friendly, progressive, democratic country that protected human rights, as opposed to the other homophobic Middle Eastern nations, completely ignoring the immense atrocities LGBTQ+ community members have faced in Israel as well. Netanyahu also supports a myriad of parties and organizations internationally that infringe upon the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

While Israel is often depicted as a safe country for the queer community, recent instances of hatred or violence may demonstrate how that might not be the full picture. On July 30 2015, Shiri Banka, a 16-year-old high school student, became one of six people stabbed at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade by an ultra-Orthodox Jew named Yishai Schlissel, who had carried out a similar attack on a gay pride parade in 2005. Banka’s death demonstrates the ongoing struggle for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community in a country proclaiming they are a safe haven for the community.

This discourse begs the question of what is the lived reality of LGBTQ+ individuals in the occupied territories and whether or not it is relatable to the rest of the Arab world. In "This Arab is Queer: An Anthology by LGBTQ+ Arab Writers" published by Saqi in 2022, editor Elias Jahshan attempts to give agency to 18 queer Arab writers by entrusting them with the task of narrating their own stories and experiences. This anthology represents an effort to reclaim control over the subject matter and challenge prevailing stereotypes and misconceptions of the single story that the Arab world does not accept homosexuality.

Jahsan’s work delves deeper into the queerness of people and culture in the Arab world which has been historically present but concealed by feelings of guilt and shame brought about by colonialism, the impact of which is felt in most formerly colonized countries. 

Throughout the last few decades, Palestine and the occupied territories have seen a slow but steady effort to support the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community, while rising against the occupation. In July 2020, Julia Zaher, CEO of Al Arz tahini company, made an announcement stating that a portion of the company's profits would be contributed towards the establishment of an LGBTQ helpline for Arabs. This initiative was to be undertaken in collaboration with Aguda, which is Israel's LGBT Task Force. While she received backlash from conservative communities, much of the discontent was from the LGBTQ+ community themselves, who disagreed with the fact that Zaher had donated to an Israeli group. They contended that she should have contributed the funds to Al Qaws, an organization in Jerusalem that promotes the rights of the Palestinian LGBT community across the Green Line. 

Al Qaws offers assistance to queer Palestinians who do not desire to engage with Israeli non-governmental organizations, and adopts a firm political stance against the occupation while supporting the Palestinian national movement. This sparks the discourse of how Palestinians can uplift the LGBTQ+ community while resisting the occupation and subjecting themselves to the pinkwashing that plagues the international community.

Currently, the city of Haifa has fostered an LGBTQ subculture with a Palestinian nationalist demeanor, where Israelis are not welcomed, demonstrating a resistance to the occupation while advocating for the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community.

The 2020 data of the Global Barometers of Gay Rights for Israel classifies the country as a C with a grade of 78% while the Global Barometer for Transgender Rights is at 65%. As we look at the GBGR and GBTR data for Israel, we can recognize that the score is significantly higher than the regional score of the MENA region. But do these protections really apply to Palestinians in the occupied territories?

 

threat warning: Andrew Tate

lulu

2023/3/20

By Aliza Kibel

Andrew Tate, a former kickboxer and self-proclaimed social media personality, recently caused controversy after making threatening comments towards the LGBTQ community on his Twitter account. Tate has a history of making controversial statements, but his recent comments have drawn widespread criticism and calls for action against him.

In a series of tweets, Tate declared that he would "knock out any gay person who approaches" him, and stated that he would not "tolerate" anyone from the LGBTQ community. He also made derogatory comments about trans people, referring to them as "mentally ill."

Tate's comments were immediately met with backlash, with many people calling for his social media accounts to be suspended or deleted. The LGBTQ community and its allies expressed fear and outrage, with some expressing concerns that Tate's comments could incite violence against them.

This is not the first time that Tate has made controversial statements. In the past, he has faced criticism for making sexist and racist comments, as well as promoting toxic masculinity. However, his recent comments have been particularly concerning, as they specifically target a marginalized community and promote violence against them.

Andrew Tate also launched a podcast where he regularly made derogatory comments about women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and black people. Despite some assuming that he was using shock tactics, his actions and words suggest that he truly believes in his offensive messages. In 2016, a video emerged of him physically assaulting a woman, which he claimed was consensual. More recently, he has been arrested on allegations of rape and human trafficking.

The most alarming aspect of this situation is that Tate's followers are primarily young men. They listen to his podcast, read and share his tweets, and view him as a life mentor with the answers on how to be a "real man" who commands respect and attains wealth. Unfortunately, they have chosen a terrible role model.

As they continue to consume Tate's content, they become more convinced that his views are correct. They begin to spread his messages of homophobia and racism. Their beliefs about life are shaped by his words and actions. As a result, they start to view minority groups as a problem and feel entitled to attack them both online and offline.

The culture that Tate promotes is not only toxic but also harmful, and we should all be concerned. Some of his young male followers have become radicalized and turned against the LGBTQ+ community. In October, Tate tried to attack Lil Nas X during an interview with Piers Morgan, claiming that the rapper was a worse influence on young men than he was. Lil Nas X, a talented Grammy-winning musician, did not take this lying down and responded with a tweet telling Tate to stop mentioning him.

For Tate to go on national televison and call out a gay rapper, claiming he is a problem to society, is wrong. Tate is really good at deflecting the issue and blaming others and finding excuses for his homophobic and racist remarks.

This is dangerous given how toxic it has been off late for minority groups, particularly the LGBQ+ community. There have been increased cases of homophobia on Twitter since CEO Elon Musk took over. Musk unbanned Tate from the platform and he is now free to continue his antagonising remarks on the community. This culture is then emulated by his followers and the trolling gets dire.

Even after his arrest, his followers continue to spew hate online, defending Tate and mocking minority groups. The wave of misogyny and homophobia continues to reign. Hopefully, his arrest will awaken some of these young men to realize that Tate is nothing more than a misguided man. He is not some alpha male and they should be cancelling him. 

Fortunately, he is in jail. 

reference : https://twitter.com/Cobratate

Moral Protection's Trojan Horse: A Discussion on CDMX's Transphobic Proposal Against Trans Youth Rights.

  

  Victoria Samano stands with other protestors at Mexico City’s Congress building. Photo taken by Isis Magdalena on Twitter.  Source

 MEXICO CITY (CDMX)- On February 21^st, transactivists, LGBTTTIQ+ communities, and allies protested outside Mexico City’s Congress building. Aside from chants, the protestors threw paint at, wrote on, and broke the windows of the building. When 3 demonstrators who successfully entered the lobby had decided to leave, they were quickly assaulted by security. One of these demonstrators, transactivist Victoria Samano, was held in the building for an hour, teargassed, and sustained injuries on her legs, feet, and ribs from being kicked, the glass of windows, and from a fire extinguisher (Nava, 2023). Yet, the Board of Directors of the CDMX Congress claim that no protestors were injured directly by their personnel and that injuries were self-inflicted by the glass windows the protestors broke (Diaz, 2023). But what incited the protest in the first place?

To understand why protestors marched to the Congress building on the 21^st, we must not only contextualize transphobia in Mexico, but look at the events of February 9^th. America Rangel, who currently serves as a Deputy on Mexico City’s Congress, has been involved in the PAN party since 2008. While she campaigns on defending life, family, and individual liberty, her work in legislation and public comments say otherwise. Most recently, on February 9^th, she proposed changing aspects of Article 79 Bis to the local Penal Code and the State’s Law of the Rights of Children and Adolescents. Below is the translated version of the proposal to Article 79 Bis:

The Give and Take: LGBTQ+ Rights in Kenya

Dichotomy and Duality in Kenya:

One Small Step Down the Aisle, Two Giants Leaps Back

KENYA – Following a “groundbreaking” ruling on LGBTQ+ human rights, issued by the Supreme Court of Kenya in late February, it would appear that equal protections are near-and-in-sight for Kenyans of all sexual orientations. However, placing both the opinion itself, as well as the decision’s rampant and wicked backlash under a microscope would seem to suggest that looks…

  can be deceiving.

---

Photograph: Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty Images

February 2023: After a lengthy pre-hearing period, with a file for appeal dating back to pre-pandemic 2019, the Supreme Court of Kenya has finally issued its 3-2 ruling in NGOs Coordination Board v. Eric Gitari (2023). The case stems from an incident that occurred on March 25, 2015, wherein the NGO Coordination Board, a governmental agency tasked with the management and registration of the nation’s Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), denied a prospective NGO’s slate of six proposed names, and later its application as a whole. The government's purported grounds for rejection; the NGO sought to advocate for, lobby, and “champion” LGBTQ+ rights - and wanted the name to directly reflect that mission.

Citing a myriad of Penal Code statutes, including Articles 162, 163, and 165 (remember these for later), the Board asserted that not only would naming an NGO in a manner that includes any word(s), directly or indirectly, related to LGBTQ+ labels be inadmissible, but that approving such an organization, battling for the group’s human rights, would be “satanic,” “unnatural,” and simply “criminal.”  In adjudicating the issue, the Court pointed to Article 27 (c.4) of Kenya’s 2010 Constitution, which states;

“The State shall not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth.”

This principle, in tandem with Article 36, all but laid at the Justice’s feet an explicit ruling wrapped in a neat bow of plain-to-see legal logic. Mincing no words on the matter, the Court stated that the Board’s, 

“... decision was discriminatory and that it would be unconstitutional to limit the right to associate, through denial of registration of an association, purely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the applicants”

However, rather than leave the ruling on constitutional grounds, alone, the Bench ventured beyond the narrow confines of legality, and seemingly towards a communiqué of social activism and advocation, declaring, 

“Human rights are inherent and held simply because of being a human. All human beings, including LGBTIQ persons, are entitled to the full enjoyment of all the rights under chapter four of the constitution, not by reason of their sexual preferences as LGBTIQ but as human beings. Just as the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals are not based on their sexual orientation but by virtue of common humanity.”

Such a bold, overt statement of systematic support for LGBTQ+ individuals is something of an unparalleled notion in Kenya, a nation that has received a grade of “F” in every category, every year reported by both the GBGR and GBTR of the F&M Global Barometers. Because of this, it should come as no surprise that pundits, the press, and the public, alike, were quick to buoyantly embolden the decision. Heralding it as a staggering “victory” in a “decade-long battle” for Kenya’s LGBTQ+ community, articles, such as those shown below, circulated subsequent to the ruling, celebrating the group’s newfound legitimacy and the statutory strides of progress which now rested on a once illusory table.

Source: Peter Muiruri/The Guardian

However, as government officials, religious leaders, and fringe extremists have raised a vitriolic, abominable uproar in the aftermath, the future of LGBTQ+ human rights in Kenya is shaky at best, and all but decimated at worst. This comes as, in addition to the public’s prejudicial pandemonium, a damning addendum, surreptitiously slipped into the majority opinion’s closing statements, suggests that the battle is far from over…

---

May 2019: Before jumping into the current status of the struggle over LGBTQ+ human rights in Kenya, it is imperative to step back a few years, to May 24, 2019. Kenya’s High Court, which has subordinate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, yet still wields the gavel with immense authority, ruled unanimously to uphold Penal Code laws banning same-sex relations, intercourse, and marriage. Initially instituted through British colonial rule, the codes in question “remained a part of Kenyan law after independence in 1963,” offering, as Human Rights Watch described, a continuation of the “dangerous” “mistreatment of LGBTQ people, who report harrowing… abuses, discrimination, and violence.” Additionally, the penalties for committing, what the Kenyan Penal Code of Statutes refers to as “Unnatural Offenses,” and “Indecent Practices” are obscenely severe and unmistakably egregious human rights violations.

For performing, “carnal knowledge,” most commonly known by everyone else in the world simply as - sex - “against the order of nature,” or, as the depraved framers responsible for writing this law, the legislators who elected to maintain it, and the judges who cemented it into precedent, really mean - with a consenting person of the same sex - “is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.” In fact, the very next Article declares that the mere “attempt” to have consensual intercourse with a same-sex individual is punishable by seven years of prison. 

Photograph: Khalil Senosi/AP

Then, only two articles away (skipping the next, not because the Penal Code placed a different, unrelated article in between two banning same-sex sex, but because the connecting law was repealed by Kenya’s Congress in Act No. 3 of 2006, showing that legislators “deleted” one anti-LGBTQ+ law, but felt the remaining were acceptable enough to stay in effect), the Code establishes that “any male person who… commits any act of gross indecency with another male person,” (again referring to sex, but this time, for whatever reason, specifically, between gay men; a law redundant as it is evil), be sentenced to five years in prison. Despite the obviously invidious nature of these punishments, especially considering that an LGBTQ+ man who partakes in gay relations could face a total of twenty-six years in prison, Justice Chacha Mwita stated, in reference to these punitive measures, “We are not persuaded… that the offenses against them [LGBTQ+] are overboard.” In short, the illegality and harsh chastisement an LGBTQ+ person would face, per these statutes, is, in the eyes of the Kenyan High Court, not a big deal. What are these codes, and why are they relevant, you may be wondering? The aforementioned Articles are 162, 163, and 165 respectively. Sound familiar?

---

March 2023: Back now to the present. With a firm understanding of Articles 162, 163, and 165, the argument raised by the NGO Coordination Board becomes evident. Because any act of LGBTQ+ relationships, ranging from marriage all the way down to attempted intimacy, is against the law, then, as the defendant claimed, registering any NGO, is illegal as well.

Though this assertion did not convince the Court, and the question of association was answered firmly on behalf of LGBTQ+ rights, the case is arguably a greater setback to the community, than it is a triumph. This is because, reaffirmed by the decision, almost in passing, was the constitutionality of sections 162-165. The Court made clear its continued intentions to“criminalize gay and lesbian liaisons,” as the opinion certified the governmental sentiment on these relations as being, “against the order of nature.”

In what can only be described as a profoundly gutting action, the Supreme Court of Kenya proclaimed that, though LGBTQ+ individuals are “non-selectively” recognized as human beings, receive equal protection under the law, and reserve the right to not be discriminated against, “purely on the basis of the sexual orientation,” they are simultaneously barred from living with love, intimacy, and a lived experience of truly being themselves, as these are reserved for those attracted to, “only persons of the opposite sex.” In fact, to experience any of these, would be to explicitly “contravene existing laws, …162, 163, and 165,” and doing so will result in not only subsequent imprisonment but also being “sanctioned” from the freedom of association, as well as other “various constitutional provisions.” Understanding this reality brings to light a new meaning to the quote below, mentioned at the start of this post;

“Human rights are inherent and held simply because of being a human. All human beings, including LGBTIQ persons, are entitled to the full enjoyment of all the rights under chapter four of the constitution, not by reason of their sexual preferences as LGBTIQ but as human beings. Just as the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals are not based on their sexual orientation but by virtue of common humanity.”

---

2023+: Whatever may be next in store for the LGBTQ+ citizens of Kenya is uncertain, but unfortunately, the outlook is increasingly grim. Despite the group technically gaining legal protections, the statutes outlawing their very existence have been cemented further into precedent, making the repeal of Articles 162-165 a demonstrably harder task. Additionally, the small, bittersweet victory has enraged the masses, and now an onslaught of attacks against LGBTQ+ human rights are coming from every direction. Known gay and lesbian Kenyans are faced with increasing, “...confrontations with landlords and employers,” resulting in the forceful loss of housing, jobs, and legal and health services. Moreover, targeted violence and hate crimes against gays is surging, with prominent activists commonly going missing or being murdered, all with no indication that the attacks will slow.

Yet, the counter-offensive against LGBTQ+ rights isn’t exclusive to rogue individuals or niche public coalitions. The sentiment extends to innumerable powerful religious and political leaders. The many evangelical churches in the nation have joined in a collective and unrelenting admonishing of the ruling, with one Bishop, Caliso Odede, equating LGBTQ+ people to “other illegal practitioners like paedophiles and those involved in incest.” Legislators and lobbyists are working actively to institute “harsher penalties against LGBTQ'' and expanded provisions to include “lesbianism, transgender, and queer practices” in writing for both new and existing bans. Even the President of Kenya, William Ruto, has joined the anti-gay movement in brazen fashion, claiming that the nation’s “culture and religion does not allow same-sex” representation, and that progress, “...is not possible for our country. …It will happen in other countries, but not in Kenya.” Accordingly, Ruto has coordinated with his Attorney General, Justin Muturi, who proclaimed that he will “head to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling,” himself, as he believes, “seeking full bench… to address the matter,” is “in the important interest of the public and country.”

International support for LGBTQ+ Kenyans and acknowledgment of the current risks to their rights appears to be negligible. Googling, news article surfing, Hashtag-mining, and press release hunting for any statements from global leaders, human rights organizations, or even overly privileged A-list celebrity activists, all seem to show similar results; scarcely a word in a vacuum of worldwide silence. Perhaps this will change, or perhaps the fight for human rights should be left all to Kenya, itself. Either way, something needs to be done so as to see the day when the Kenyan government says,

“Human rights are inherent and held simply because of being a human.” 

    ...and means it.

Photograph:  Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images