The recent pronouncement by honourable judge Tebogo Rannowane for the government to register and recognise Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGAGIBO) deserves applause. Surely Botswana as a country needs progressive people like him who uphold the constitution and the rights of all citizens.
Traditional ideologies that do not reflect democratic and progressive credentials cannot be used as a veil to perpetuate transgression of people’s rights and stifle the principles of democracy. All concerned citizens must join in to break the myth about homosexuality and any other acts that are contrary to democracy. It is on this backdrop that I am compelled to pen down this article to further articulate on the issue of same sex.
The question of ‘unnaturalness’ of homosexuality in our contemporary society, not just in Botswana raises the question of what exactly we mean by nature. Globally countries are grappling with whether to legalise homosexuality or continue persecuting those who subscribe to it.
Mind you dear reader, I do not claim to be an expert in this field, but rather just inviting your thoughts on the issue. We really need to take time and ponder about issues of this nature openly and logically without necessarily being emotional about it; by the way it is not yet illegal to think.
Experts on this field avers that what is natural implies anything that is in conformity with the descriptive laws of nature or rather that which man has not imposed his will and tamper with its original actuality. My petite comprehension of the concept suggests am not far from the truth.
The gripe then is where really some moralist and theologians contend that homosexuality is against the law of nature. Which nature do they lay claim to for their judgement or objection to homosexuality? I still need to be convinced as to how homosexual activities violate the laws of nature. Prescriptive laws of nature which in most instances moralist and theologians base their objections on are merely from human laws and have nothing to do with what is perceived natural.
Some aspects of our constitution need to be applauded for the liberal democratic dispensation that is reflected in it. Comparatively, it beats some of our African sister countries hands down, no doubts. A glance at it indicates that it has enshrined and embraced the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of each individual to enjoy. Furthermore, it has articulated the individual fundamental freedom of conscience, expression, assembly and association.
Contrary to constitutional aspirations, the issue of sexuality and sexual orientation still seems to be relegated to the lowest echelons of the constitutional ladder. It seems the constitution in forbidding some sexual acts specifically homosexuality, the legislators have also relied on prescriptive nature. In this case they are interested in governing and describing human behaviour rather than prescribing what it should be like.
The question that lingers is whether it caters for those who are more inclined to homosexuality. Are we a society that shuns those who happen to be more inclined to homosexuality even when sexual orientation is embraced in the constitution? The notion that homosexuality goes against nature cannot be used as a moral weighting. Is there anything wrong with going against nature? The claim by human beings that we are more developed and techno sophisticated is our ability to manipulate and tamper with what is natural. Is there anything wrong with that, obviously no since it makes life more bearable and happy.
A lot of people will agree with me that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that since we seem to be gratified in man-made habitat and all that is at our disposal is artificial e.g. houses, clothes, cell phones, money you name it all they fulfil our lives. Are we then not being hypocrites to deny homosexuals the liberty to express their sexuality on the pretext of ‘unnaturalness’ whereas heterosexual community finds nothing wrong in accessing artificial amenities. This is a mere reflection of a double pronged principles that our society find solace in to castigate homosexuality.
Are we ever going to achieve one of the vision 2016 pillars which advocates for a caring and tolerant nation? Attitudinal or a complete paradigm shift is inevitable for this to be realised lest this remains an unattainable dream. Our reactions to homosexuality as a society reflect our intolerance for a divergent sexual orientation. What happened to the idea of uniqueness or do we limit its understanding where it suits us most?
During his 2010 and 2011 interview with the British Broadcasting Company, former Botswana President Festus Mogae spoke out strongly against sexual discrimination. His observation could not be far from the truth that preconception was dissuading determinations to combat HIV in a country where one in four adults is presumed to have the disease.
"We do not want to discriminate. Our HIV message applies to everybody. If we are fighting stigma associated with sex, let's apply it to sexual discrimination in general." Simply put being an open and more progressive society would enable us to accept and even amend laws that are unfavourable to those who indulge in so called ‘unnatural sexual activities’.
Ministry of Health recently released a report which associated the rampant spread of HIV with homosexual behaviour. Since this has been acknowledged by all stakeholders there is no question about the route to be pursued, but for the legislators to go back to the drawing board and make accommodative laws for bisexuals and homosexuals.
The interrogation remains if we are going to continue living in denial as a nation and risking more spread of the virus under the façade of ‘unnatural behaviour’. Are we then as a society using issues of ‘unnatural acts’ given our malnourished understanding of the concept to chastise those with different sexual inclination contrary to heterosexual?
Unnatural acts are but societal perceptions that chose to believe in a fallacy that God had ordained heterosexual. Let us have a moment and just think about it. By engaging in heterosexual activities, are we implying that gays and lesbians are engaging in something unnatural? Is this not some sort of imposed morality of traditional theologians and legislators on those who do not subscribe to their ideologies and values?
Who are we to judge and dictate how they engage in their private life. Situation Ethics advance that we ought to look at individual situation and our judgement of their actions must be premised on what love dictates for them. By breaking any conventional rule along the way does not in any way reflect immorality on their actions since it is their privacy and they derive happiness from that.
Socially constructed ideas must not hamper our endeavour to progress in every aspect of life including even how we conduct ourselves sexually. To remain a truly shining example of democracy in Africa, there is need for individuals to liberate themselves from bondage of ignorance.
A complete overhaul of our mind-set should reflect a society willing to change its attitude and embrace principles of democracy. Emancipation from the traditional dogma takes a willing, progressive and an open minded society to catapult it forward. Nurturing true democracy is a meandering and labouring journey that takes time and perseverance therefore let us all soldier on and build a truly all rounded democratic nation.
How ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ of me to ask for a more open minded and democratic society?
Botswana Police Service (BPS) has indicated concern about the ongoing trend where the general public falls victim to criminals purporting to be police officers.
According to BPS Assistant Commissioner, Dipheko Motube, the criminals target individuals at shopping malls and Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) where upon approaching the unsuspecting individual the criminals would pretend to have picked a substantial amount of money and they would make a proposal to the victims that the money is counted and shared in an isolated place.
“On the way, as they stop at the isolated place, they would start to count and sharing of the money, a criminal syndicate claiming to be Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officer investigating a case of stolen money will approach them,” said Motube in a statement.
The Commissioner indicated that the fake police officers would instruct the victims to hand over all the cash they have in their possession, including bank cards and Personal Identification Number (PIN), the perpetrators would then proceed to withdraw money from the victim’s bank account.
Motube also revealed that they are also investigating a case in which a 69 year old Motswana woman from Molepolole- who is a victim of the scam- lost over P62 000 last week Friday to the said perpetrators.
“The Criminal syndicate introduced themselves as CID officers investigating a case of robbery where a man accompanying the woman was the suspect.’’
They subsequently went to the woman’s place and took cash amounting to over P12 000 and further swindled amount of P50 000 from the woman’s bank account under the pretext of the further investigations.
In addition, Motube said they are currently investigating the matter and therefore warned the public to be vigilant of such characters and further reminds the public that no police officer would ask for bank cards and PINs during the investigations.
Botswana Congress Party (BCP) leadership walked out of Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting this week on account of being targeted by other cooperating partners.
UDC meet for the first time since 2020 after previous futile attempts, but the meeting turned into a circus after other members of the executive pushed for BCP to explain its role in media statements that disparate either UDC and/or contracting parties.
The Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC), Tymon Katlholo’s spirited fight against the contentious transfers of his management team has forced the Office of the President to rescind the controversial decision. However, some insiders suggest that the reversal of the transfers may have left some interested parties with bruised egos and nursing red wounds.
The transfers were seen by observers as a badly calculated move to emasculate the DCEC which is seen as defiant against certain objectionable objectives by certain law enforcement agencies – who are proven decisionists with very little regard for the law and principle.