Stop Christian Radicalization

Islamic and Christian radicalization, both quench from the same fountain. One cannot condemn Islamic extremism and fail to condemn Christian extremism in this country – they after all drink from the same fountain. They all seek to impose their religious world view on others because they seek to have their creed become the source-code for public policy. 

True Christian extremists are more subtle and will often use endearing terms like Kenya is a Christian country, or is a God fearing country which is a code-word for adoption of their world views. But they still use the most extreme of threats for those who oppose their views particularly on social issues. Never mind their projections have been proved wrong in the past – Remember they opposed the constitution because it would make Kenya an Islamic state (thanks to the Kadhi’s court) and that abortion would be on demand and all manner of accusations in their “10reasons why the country should vote No”.

As Rev. Karanja said then, “If Christians are convinced that there are provisions in the proposed constitution that undermine their practice of religion; they will stand to be counted for God.” In the event none of the apocalyptic predictions has come to pass. Islam and the Moslem continue to feel as marginalized as they were before the passing of the Kenya Constitution 2010 and in some respects the current struggle with extremists is a consequence of this marginalization.

Christians have continued to exercise undue influence on public policy. Perhaps the religious leaders need not worry because the Deputy President was on their side in rejecting the “still referred to as NEW” Constitution. Indeed only recently at a church in Nakuru, Mr. Ruto is reported as having said that “Kenya is a God Fearing Nation.”He was castigating president Obama for calling for equal treatment for all people before the law – including gay people. 

Of course the constitution says that Kenya is a secular state and it also provides for freedom of conscience, which should include freedom to believe or not to believe in any particular religion. This then goes against Anglican Archbishop - Rev. Wabukala’s, desire to influence public policy on the basis of his religious views on marriage.  In his statement on marriage Mr. Wabukala seeks to impose his religious views on non-Anglicans and non-Christians, in a law the he very well admits does not apply to practicing Christians.  This is how he puts it: 

“It is true that this legislation would not apply to Christian marriages, but we cannot stay quiet when we see the place of women in our society being demeaned.  God’s pattern is given for us in one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, before the fall and is reaffirmed in the New Testament where we see marriage used as a picture of the love of Christ for his bride, the Church.”  

He justifies this clear desire to impose his creed on non-believers, because his creed says, that it’s the only legitimate view world and faith view – well all creeds do that. Even Mr Harrison Mumia, the president of Atheists in Kenya, believes in his “atheist creed.” What if he wanted it to be the law of the land?

I have greater admiration for Mr. Harrison though, because his group, is actually helping Kenya realize the dream anticipated by the Kenya Constitution 2010. It is people like him and his group, who are at the margins, (religious in this case) that are helping protect the rights of those at the center from tactful but progressive chipping away of their constitutional rights and freedoms.

The constitution says that Kenya is a secular state – and this needs to be emphasized at every slight opportunity. What unites us as Kenyans (much to the shock of Mr. Wabukala, Cardinal Njue, Mr. Karanja of NCCK) is not the Biblical values or those of the Qur’an or the Gita, but the National values and principles of Governance as outlined in Chapter 2section 10 of our constitution.  These are the values that we should uphold in the public space or as the constitution says; these are binding in the interpretation of the constitution, in the enactment of any law or in the making or interpretation of any public policy decisions.  

We must understand that when we make religion the heartbeat of our public policy, then each church/denomination will seek to calibrate that heartbeat according to the pulse rate of its own creed. 

As a society we must appreciate the vanguard role played by the people at the margins (boundaries) of our rights and freedoms. The protections of the rights and freedoms of the people at the center are only as strong or as weak as the ability of the people at the margins to protect theirs. That is why, it is imperative to empower and strengthen the people at the margins – they are after all at the front-line of our defenses and we need to ensure their rights are not taken away by the pervasive Christian Radicalization of our nation!

HIV-Free Generation for your Children? Kiharu MP wants otherwise!

There is this study that is doing rounds in several Health - and particularly HIV/AIDS oriented mailing lists. The paper is exciting because it provides easy to understand, yet deeply convincing policy and fiscal arguments for investing resources and indeed creating positive policy environments for Key Populations. In many countries in East Africa, - including Kenya this includes Persons who inject drugs, Sex workers and gay men and other men who have sex with men. 

The paper argues that targeting highly connected individuals for prevention resources may have a disproportionately powerful effect in bringing down HIV prevalence. And this makes sense. If you wanted to reduce transmission of an infectious condition, it helps in ensuring that the people who are likely to transmit to more people are prevented from getting that condition in the first place. 

According to studies done in Kenya, a sex worker is likely to have sex with seven different men, on a weekly basis while a married woman is likely to have sex with only one man.  In terms of preventing HIV transmission then, it makes sense to ensure the sex worker is not infected with HIV, because of the likelihood of transmitting it to many more men, than would a married woman. The same argument applies for men who have sex with men, as well as PWID.

For a Member of Parliament from Murang’a country, this information is important because Murang’a has the highest HIV prevalence in the whole of Central Kenya. At 5% prevalence, it is just shy of the National prevalence which is currently estimated at 5.6%. As expected Murang’a also lags behind in other health outcome indicators. 

One would be forgiven to imagine, that a legislator from such a severely hit region, would be at the forefront of advocating for legislations and policies that make it possible for as many people as possible to come out to know their HIV status, as well as for those in high risk groups, to take up prevention and treatment. This is especially the case when we know; people on treatment are far less likely to transmit HIV, and that, people who know their HIV status take better care of their health than those who do not know.

 Indeed in this parliamentary debate which he instigated at asking for strict implementation of anti-gay laws, shows, the challenge of HIV remains a very real and growing challenge.  This debate instigated by Mr. Kang’atia, led to treatment interruption for more 200 MSM who had to run for safety for fear of possible arrests and violence. Hon Kang'atia knows very well, that criminalization of MSM, drives them further underground so they are unable to access qualified prevention, treatment and care. He also knows that such exclusion creates fertile ground for accelerated HIV transmission. 

One can therefore conclude, that for all the parents in Kiharu Constituency, who would like their children to grow in a HIV-Free Murang’a their current MP, presents their worst nightmare. Mr. Kang’atia may be good for Kiharu people in many other ways, but for those who aspire to successful HIV prevention programs they must ask themselves whether he represents their best interests. 

In Murang’a and in Kenya, Hon. Kang’atia has written his legacy – he is the face of anti-HIV prevention, and for parents who care for their children there is need to reflect what this legacy means. 

The moral argument advanced by Hon Kang'atia in the push for anti-gay laws is not convincing because, as the now besieged leader of government notes in the Hansard report, solution lies in dialogue. it does lie in the strict enforcement of a law imported to Kenya by the colonialists in 1930, when we had no HIV challenge to deal with. Yet, this legacy is for Hon. Kang'atia for keeps - the question is what will you do about it? If you are from Murang'a especially, what does this mean for you?