What is wrong with Kenyan Women? Look at what homophobia has done?

So the polygamy bill is only now waiting presidential assent. Among its many benefits as family lawyer Judy Thongori reminded women, is that it consolidates all the marriage laws into one . It is therefore easier to administer matrimonial issues especially during divorce. The bill has many benefits - among which, as the self-confessed homophobe, is that it provided opportunity to close down any backdoor attempt at same-sex marriage.

The law is not controversial because it now allows polygamy. Kenyan women made peace with that long time ago. As a compromise, they had suggested that existing wife’s consent be sought first before their husbands added another wife(s). But now as Judy notes “No consent of the existing wife is required. You consent to a marriage that is potentially polygamous when you opt to marry under customary law.”

 “Progressive” women are saying, all they need is to ensure that one does not marry according to customary law – Muthoni Thang’wa wrote. Her article presents the “other options” available to women who “wish to be in a monogamous marriage.” This article so annoyingly simplistic – as if a woman in Turkana, Pokot or Narok, fighting against early marriage for her daughter with the hope that her daughter gets a better life than she did, would have agency to opt for a “Christian” marriage? I think the feminist theory calls these layered vulnerabilities – Intersectionality?

Of course if Muthoni were not a woman, one would be excused to think of her along the same lines as the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee chairman Samuel Chepkong’a. During the debate in parliament, Mr. Chepkong’a said “Any time a man comes home with a woman, that would be assumed to be a second or third wife. Under customary law, women or wives you have married do not need to be told when you’re coming home with a second or third wife. Any lady you bring home is your wife.” 

But this bill is a result of something much worse happening in the Women Rights movement in Kenya. I agree with Dr. Nyairo, that the quality of women representatives in parliament is deeply wanting.  I also agree with her that in years gone by, women leaders, like Wangari Maathai, Eddah Gachukia, Phoebe Asiyo and others offered far better leadership, in a far hostile environment than the current women leadership.

But she fails to diagnose when the “rains started to beat” the women leadership. My view is that they started after Moi and others denigrated them using heterosexual and patriarchical – hereafter referred to as hetero-patriarchy anchor-points. When Moi, referred to them as a “bunch of divorcees.”  A new generation of women leaders emerged, that wanted to prove they were more “catholic than the pope” – paying homage to hegemonic masculinity and distancing themselves from anything that seemed contrary to the traditional concept of marriage.

According to them, the woman was powerful not because she is a human with “equal dignity,” but rather because she is “the neck” which enables the “head” i.e., the man to turn.  (I really hate this metaphor of the head and the neck, because if all women are like my mother and my sisters, then they are more like the backbone of their families rather than just the neck)!

A once famous lawyer’s organization, that had done so much to build the human dignity of the woman, adopted hetero-patriarchy as its guiding star. It was during this time while working at GALCK, we approached this once-famous organization, with a case of a Lesbian who had been raped. The response was as stunning as it was utterly disgusting. “We are a family-oriented organization, we are afraid we cannot work or be seen to work with lesbians!”

The women swallowed hook, line, and sinker what their male religious leaders told them – “equal does not mean similar.” That just because they fought for equal rights, they did not need to have similar rights, after all men are different from women.  Unfortunately, the new generation of women leaders failed to realize that it was not about the details but the PRINCIPLE of equality that mattered.

Moreover, worshiping at the altar of hetero-patriarchy, they failed to see, gays as their allies in the struggle to dismantling besieged masculine hegemony. Now I look at them well aware that I can marry any number of women, - yes as a gay man, and at no cost (because there is provision for prenuptial), just to spite the “family-oriented-non-homosexual-supporting” women leadership! How could they proselytize just to get a few favours?

Now look at what they have done? Do they even realize it? The power of the new law lies not in the fact that men will marry more wives – far from it. It lies in the abiding threat to take on more wives! And don’t talk about civil or Christian marriages. The threat of divorce so as to enter a more accommodating customary marriage will just be as effective. Just like the anti-gay laws, the power of the new law lies not in its execution, but rather in ever abiding potential for execution. If women leaders had listened to the gays, they would have known that….

Anyway, the bill is not yet law…..now go and do something about it!

Why I will no longer support Gay Rights

First, apologies for the incorrect headline – though it does contain some truth. After the intermittent closure of a centre serving MSM living positively, I have had to (as am sure many within the movement have), reflect on our advocacy approaches. As much as I would like to attain full equality and not be discriminated, such would never be satisfying if it comes at the cost of someone’s life.

Some brief background – the MSM centre in question has as one of its main objectives, to provide a conducive environment for people of ARVs to adhere to treatment. Knowing the challenges that MSM face in Kenya, including constant threat of eviction, and violence; as well as stigma and discrimination, which would most certainly be exacerbated if one’s HIV status were to be known in the community, the group in question established a centre where people can safely keep their ARVs. Moreover, because there are many other peers on treatment, the stigma associated with being on treatment is significantly reduced. Adherence is supported by a mutual “brother’s keeper” approach to treatment.

For me the question, was then, could it be that my approach to advocacy, threatened the Hon. Kangatias and Nderitu Njokas of this world to feel the only solution lay in violent disruption of gay rights work in Kenya?

Perhaps the real question is; as we in Kenya quarrel about gay rights, with some on the one hand asking for stricter laws, since the current ones only stop same-sex activity but not public declaration of sexual orientation; and the others saying the current laws are an impediment to their health, human rights and wellbeing and should therefore be repealed. Have we become oblivious to the fact that this struggle or at least the strategies we are adopting diminish our own capacity for agency and identity as Africans or indeed to be precise as Kenyans?

This is not the first time global movements seem to have dictated on us, the tools of social engagement with each other. We use religious tools to fight with each other, yet the presence of Islam in inland Kenya, was motivated by and maintained by slave trade – while the Christianising movement was motivated by or at least given impetus by the abolitionists (of slave trade and civilizing Africans) movement and the sudden realization that colonies could translate into profits for imperial regimes.  

The languages we speak – whether it’s English or French and economic systems we use, have only been Africanised by colloquialism and patrimonialitic corruption. So for each side of the divide, we foolishly ask, for whom does the bell toll, without realizing it tolls for each one of us!

It is time to reclaim our agency. It is time to ask now that we realize a significant minority of our population will always be gay and lesbian, how do we best live our ideals as a society – respecting each other’s space and being. I posit that the traditional society would have approached this question by seeking consensus. And consensus was never a majority dictatorship. It is about realizing a decision that has consent of each member of the decision making group.

That is why; going forward advocacy will not be about decriminalization and enactment of protective laws for gays – which hopefully eventually end with recognition of same-sex marriages. No, rather, it will be about seeking opportunity to sit down with all stakeholders – the moralists, the traditionalists, and even with those whose organizations have now morphed into moral vigilantes to seek a ‘consensus.’ It will not be about defining my win, in terms of the losses suffered by the other side; rather it will be about attentively listening to the other side and jointly looking for the best way possible to address their concerns, without having to suffer irredeemably. 

If I were in position of influence in government I would explore a solution that optimises everyone’s expectation. Founded on the concept of representational democracy, I would form a taskforce to explore and mediate such solution – the taskforce would bring on board level-headed representatives of each side of the debate. Of course I would show goodwill particularly to those currently suffering from punitive laws, stigmatizing social conditions which often justify violence and discrimination, by suspending such laws and urging for social understanding – as the taskforce does its work. 

Since am not in position of influence, that is why I will advocate for this approach instead of gay rights – as currently defined in terms of decriminalization, equality, non-discrimination and social protection. It is not that these are not important – they are, but it is about showing goodwill and ability to listen to the other side. Never should we escalate and hard-line our position to the extent that people on treatment are withdrawn from it – for indeed it is the entire society that suffers!

Open Letter to First Lady – Why I am Running in your ½ Marathon!

Dear Madam First Lady,

Here is the justification you provide for the half-marathon to be held on Sunday the 9^th of March, 2014:

“Over 5,500 women in Kenya die annually due to pregnancy and birth related complications. In 2012 alone, over 100,000 children below age five died before their first birthday. In the same year, there were over 13,000 new HIV infections among children, of whom 62% did not access life-saving medication.” 

As you very passionately note – “It doesn’t have to be this way”  

Why is this marathon of interest to me – a gay man in Kenya?

Now of course, every Kenyan should be concerned when over 5000 women die in easily avoidable pregnancy and birth related complications. Yet I could also say, this is a problem for heterosexual men – the same way heterosexual men talk, about the criminalization of gay men in Kenya. 

But I will join you in the Marathon so that we can jointly t work to reduce the number of deaths of children under 5, pregnancy and birth related deaths and indeed neonatal HIV infections. We know that birth related HIV infections can actually be eliminated. Kenya has over 13,000 new infections in this category, over 8000 of whom, never get to access life-saving ARVs. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. 

Additionally I know, what impacts the health of one individual in the society, directly or indirectly affects me. This is not just about the burden of disease in a country and the implied cost implications, but also social costs. When a mother of 5 dies during child birth, and her orphaned children cannot access education, the poverty implications, which may include engagement in crime affects all of us. 

But I have a self-serving reason for wanting to run in this Marathon (even with a training related injury).  I realize this campaign geared towards eliminating new HIV infections among children and keep their mothers alive 

But Madam First Lady, I want to steal you into a secret of a low lying fruit that can help attain your strategic objectives. We know that over 40% of MSM are in heterosexual relationships, and we know that HIV infections among the MSM are elevated because of a number of factors; not least is the need to hide, because of criminalization, which in turn denies them access to targeted health services.  This means that these men are less likely to know their HIV status or access HIV services if they are HIV+. This has implication for their female partners and their children. 

Madam First Lady, I do not have the evidence but it would not surprise me, if the stigma and discrimination encountered by the MSM trickles down to their female partners and their children. That is why I am presenting for you the request below:

Before presenting to you the request though, Madam First Lady, I wish to bring to your attention the findings of this Study findings . This  has demonstrated that partners with undetectable viral load  do not transmit HIV to their sexual partners. This requires them to be on treatment – with capacity for adherence.

You may know from this statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health that:  “increased fear, stigma, discrimination and potential acts of violence against them limit their access to health services while continuing with risky behaviours.” 

This Madam First Lady means that in Kenya today, the female partners of the MSM and the children cannot enjoy the benefits of treatment as prevention. This is why then I am appealing for your support (in the same way am supporting your Marathon), in realizing the following requests:

Requests to the Beyond Zero campaign:

1.       Form a Reconciliation Committee that brings together the main stakeholders who have a stake on MSM health issues. These include MSM experts, The Religious/Moral Representatives, HIV and Legal experts. The task of this group should be to develop a road map for reconciling the various moral, legal and Human rights issues that prevent Key Populations from accessing HIV/AIDS including treatment to scale. 

This would be in line with your Campaign’s strategic objectives  (iii)  of Mobilizing men as clients, partners and agents of change, (iv) Involving communities to address barriers to accessing HIV, maternal and child health services and (v) of  Providing leadership, accountability and recognition to accelerate the attainment of HIV, maternal and child health targets.

2.       Request the President to suspend criminalization, of MSM for the duration of time that the Reconciliation Committee will be developing the reconciliation Road Map. During this time, we should also encourage research organizations, to study whether there is significant uptake of HIV prevention and treatment services and/or reduction in structural determinants of health that keep the MSM from services. This is in line with your Campaign’s Strategic Objective – (i) Accelerating HIV programmes

Madam First Lady, every Kilometers I will run on Sunday, with be a prayer request for you to do these two things, because I know, this approach is just like managing a financial portfolio reduces financial risk and increases investment returns in the long run. It is important to engage in what you are already doing for mothers and children, but it is also important to seal the holes that undermine the total output of your work.

The marathon will be a painful 21 kilometre run, but will be well worth the effort if you can kindly consider my request.

Thank You.