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others saying the current laws are an impediment to their health, human rights and wellbeing and should therefore be repealed.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!