Uhuru Kenyatta - please stop these persecutions

This article was initially intended to urge the president to bring his leadership bear, so that the ongoing persecutions and arrests of gay people in Mombasa can stop. Earlier in the month the president ordered officials in his government to give out lifesaving ARVs to all the children in Kenya who need them. “We now have the statistics of these children, we know where there are. We need to put them on ARVs.” He said.  

 

Yet in the same month due to the on-going crackdown on what the police call “gay porn” I have been reliably informed of at least 3 people who have failed to collect their ARVs for fear of being attacked by local vigilantes. During crackdowns such as the ongoing one, moral vigilante groups feel legitimized to visit violence on vulnerable gay persons. The Minster for health knows this, because last year he issued a statement indicating the very same thing that we are writing about here – that these kinds of activities negatively impact on Kenya’s HIV work.   

This is not to say that the police do not have a legitimate claim to seek to arrest individuals suspected of child sexual exploitation. Photos doing round the internet do show children engaging in sexual activity with adults and this should and must be punished. Yet, what the sexual minority groups in Mombasa and indeed nationally are saying, is that collective punishment only denies the police the opportunity to get valuable information for the arrest of perpetrators of this heinous crime. The approach taken by the police needs to change because it neither protects the children nor does it punish those most culpable. 

In this article I had hoped to bring it to the attention of the president that he can show Solomonic wisdom by addressing this vexing issue once and for all.  True there are two competing sides on the issue of gay and lesbian people in Kenya. On the one hand we have the religious leaders who want heterosexualization of all gay people in Kenya (or at least the denial that they exist in Kenya) and on the other hand the human rights and gay people who want the full realization of equality rights. 

The president has a unique opportunity to address this highly topical issue in a way that hopefully satiates the interests (NOT POSITIONS) of both groups. I think the president could look at interest of the two groups and negotiate on acceptable utility compromise given that a unit of utility for each of the group represents a dis-utility for the other. 

I think the president could make use of Edgeworth’s theory of indifference curves as explained in his work "Mathematical Psychics: an Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences.” In this case he could match the two group’s indifference curves such that they are inversely positioned and as each climbs the utility mould, they meet at a point that represents the best option for compromise. 

Essentially what the president would be doing is helping the two groups reach what economists call “equilibrium price” between consumers and suppliers – who similarly have inversely related utility curves. I personally hope that such equilibrium is best represented by these legal reform suggestions – because while they do not decriminalize homosexuality, they also do not unfairly invade in consenting adult’s private choices of who they love or live with. 

But instead of addressing the president however, I wish to challenge the Insurance industry to create a “Gay Rights & Health Policy.” This policy would cover for any loss or damages incurred should a gay person be arrested or accosted by moral vigilantes. Perhaps the cover could have policy add-ons like option for paying court/police bails/bonds and maybe even cover for income lost (whether a policy holder is in employment or private business).

But the commercial entities may not create this policy because of two risk factors – Adverse selection and Moral hazard. The “Gay Rights & Health” policy is likely to be attractive to those people who are most likely to be arrested and or accosted by moral vigilantes – such as gay rights activists.  Moreover if gay people (even those not in activism) were to take up such a cover, they would possibly take more risks because the insurance company bears the burden of those risks – Moral hazard is what they call it.

For that reason, I think social enterprises such us our foundation should create a mechanism that underwrites these risks. I think this would be a unique business opportunity – and for anyone looking for new business ideas, I just gave you one!