Review: Wole Soyinka on The Sexual Minority and Legislative Zealotry

The Nobel Laureate

Now, Professor Wole Soyinka is not really the easiest literary genius to read even though I did have some of his texts in my secondary school curriculum.

He has for a long time been a prolific intellectual who has spoken and written about oppression, misgovernment, corruption and the lack of accountability in leadership in Nigeria.

At 78, the man has not diminished in his critique of events and ideas whilst still retaining a considered voice of reason and deep analysis of issues especially in Nigeria.

26 years after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, I still find his writings difficult to access but full of meaning and objective discourse.

Consenting adults, the crux

This time the professor sketched his piece on the matter of homosexuality in Nigeria with an article titled – The Sexual Minority and Legislative Zealotry.

Wole Soyinka lays the groundwork for his thinking by stating that the legislation on sexual conduct between consenting adults is interference.

Then he posits that whilst foreign commentary on the activities of the Nigerian legislature in this regard is hysterical, hypocritical and disproportionate that foreign criticism should not deflect from the fact that as rational beings and particularly rational Nigerians this issue should primarily be about “the right to private choices of the free, adult citizen in any land.”

He suggests that the legislative fervour that has accompanied this matter is a distractive ploy to obscure actions of the government when out of their depth because of the economic crises or to inject unpopular policies that might catch the public unawares.

Conflated issues

Taking no prisoners, he addressed the legislators to attend to the numerous and urgent businesses for which they were elected and take their noses out of sexual practices of consenting adults whilst warning that the said bill is redolent of legislative fascism which has no place in a democracy.

The bill in his view conflates two separate issues, the first being homosexual practice and the other being same-sex marriage, something he considers deliberate.

Throughout the article, it appears the professor is stridently against the encroachment of the law on the private practices and choices of consenting adults whilst acknowledging that the law does protect minors from abuse and adults from harassment.

Biology trumps faith

Attempting a broad definition of sexuality, he pitches tent in the nature rather than nurture camp of sexual preference by suggesting some people are born with an imprecise gender definition even if the said people do have sexual organs that suggest they are either male or female.

This is probably one of the more archaic arguments for sexuality definition but it is in a language that the more sententious of Nigerians might understand.

Tackling the morality views that are used to promote support for such legislation, having averred the issue of biological truth he is categorical in saying articles of faith are no substitute for scientific truths.

Democracy or theocracy

The democracy we have in Nigeria is being tested, in that we must “choose either to create a society that is based on secular principles, or else surrender ourselves to the authority of – no matter whose – theocratic claims.”

A theocracy should go the whole hog with all beliefs and doctrines adopted and enforced regardless of whether the other person is of similar or different faiths, the idea that where scriptures agree is compulsory and where they do not is optional is a recipe for chaos.

“The national train must run either on secular rails or derail at multiple theocratic switches. No theology can be privileged over another in the running of society.  This means, theology and its derivates cannot be privileged over material reality and its derivatives.”

A law against nothing

On the issue of same-sex marriage, the professor says there is no evidence of anyone attempting to legally enter in such contracts requiring the state to honour such liaisons at a court registry nor has any religious organisation or the clergy been compelled to perform such a ceremony.

People have of their own free will the right to privately ostracise or embrace such relationships but the state overreaches itself in attempting to criminalise such liaisons.

Moralists are advised to have a sense of proportion and embrace objectivity, that being the preponderance of biological fact over moral sentiment, avoiding the tendency to incite to mass hysteria and manipulation.

The debate

This is in my view that first time a highly respected and globally renowned Nigerian figure has addressed the matter of homosexuality and same-sex marriage with an open mind, if not objectively.

The issue is one of rights, it is about sexual conduct between consenting adults, that our democracy should be superior to the tendency to be swayed by disparate belief systems that do not essential agree on all elements of doctrine to be adopted as a constitutional reference point, that the state should not interfere and that our legislators should get on with the job they were elected to perform.

Nigerians are asked to be more objective, less moralistic, adopt empirical evidence of science over sentiment and even if they have private animus, it remain their prerogative but to support the legislation of moral laws will have more far-reaching consequences beyond the supposed targets to be used as instruments of persecution, blackmail or even worse, present a licence for jungle justice and mob lynching.

The debate is beginning and the reality cannot be obfuscated with legislative distractions; there are homosexuals in Nigeria and no legislation will exterminate one of the many enduring representations of humanity.

Please read the article in its entirety, there is much sense in The Sexual Minority and Legislative Zealotry.

Thank you.

Editorial: Nigeria - The North, Religion and Politics

The incessant debates

Many a time in the discourses I have had on Twitter on that enigma of a country called Nigeria the politics of religion and the religion of politics have been so conflated that it permeates all facets of life with either associated or distant consequences.

It is quite debatable that many of the problems the country faces are political but the infusion of religion either as political tools of cohesion or ways of tapping of the innate docility of the people opiating them against agitation for lasting change can presage interminable arguments with every view containing nuggets of truth.

Religion and State

I have long advocated a genuine and complete separation of religion and state [1]. In the case of Nigeria, the fact that even the distinctive core religions which are Christianity and Islam are splintered into factions of adherences, creed, persuasion and passion is enough to put forward an strong argument for a purely secular state, religion being confined to the boundaries of the places of worship.

There are many factions of Islam just as there are many denominations of Christianity, the introduction of Sharia Law in the Northern States of Nigeria does not present a uniformity of access to fairness, justice or mercy as a secular civil law requirement will provide. In fact, it will be disingenuous, dishonest and naive for anyone to suggest there is any homogeneity in the North in terms of religion, ethnicity, politics, education or wealth.

The demographics of Nigeria

North of the rivers Niger and Benue you see such an ethnic diversity [2, Graphic] that sadly gets subsumed into the majority Hausa-Fulani linguistic group [3, Graphic] and consequently is presented as predominantly Muslim North – this is far from the truth as the graphics show.

However, much as there are many who might not agree to the idea that religion conflated with either politics and/or traditions has contributed to serious inequalities around the country especially when it pertains to critical fundamentals for economic growth [4, Graphic] as female literacy [5, Graphic] and health [6, Graphic], the correlations in parts of the country cannot be easily discarded with.

Beginning the analysis

This is not the complete picture of the how and why of troubles that Nigeria faces but it presents a starting point for honest discourse of a complex issue that is for long lacked objective truthful and searing analysis that could lead to addressing the problems and creating solutions.

The state maps should already show that beyond the much documented failings of the federal government, the state governments and local governments have hardly really suffered the necessary scrutiny and engaging need for accountability to force them to commit to serving their people – those inequalities are majorly the responsibility of leadership closer to the people than from the centre, it does not however absolve central government from inspirational leadership and infrastructure development necessary to tap healthy and educated human resources.

The cases being made again

More and more we hear from learned people about the need for religion to be personal rather than public. Senator John Danforth [7] of the United States of America has both been a senior politician and is an ordained Episcopalian priest, he probably has devoted a good deal of time considering the issues of religion and politics in society especially in America where an almost implacable activist conservative fringe is gaining undue vocal advantage in the politics of electioneering.

He had this to say about politics and religion [8].

“The language of politics is different than the language of religion -- politics is not religion. The language of religion is based on creedal affirmation, while the language of politics, when it works, is the language of compromise. To confuse politics for religion results in gridlock from the political perspective. To confuse politics for religion from the religious perspective is idolatry.”

In short, politics requires compromise which religion does not condone else you end up in gridlock and idolatry – he cannot have found a better choice of words to address this matter to Americans at first and then it should be amplified in Nigeria too.

Avoiding democratic faux-theocracies

Religion and politics can work together if in the service of humanity where the respect of humanity derives from religious persuasion of whatever sort and the politicians are statesmen with a purpose for progressive change – much of this almost sounds Utopian where selfish interests of leaders in either religion or politics comes before service and allows for the propagation of false doctrines and corruption in public office.

It remains the goal of many voices speaking up for change and coming out onto the streets in protest all around the world for more accountable representation which provides for equality untainted by the influences of religion because as the aptly named Lord Justice Laws of the UK once said [1] in a judgement:

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

And of theocracies, he had this to say [1]:

"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

In other words, a genuine democracy has to be devoid of religious or political ideological influence for the people of any state to be free. The need to abrogate the religious sway over politics has only become more urgent.

Sources

[1] The case for State law over religious guidance – AkinBlog.NL

[2] Nigerian Ethnic Groups – Courtesy of Fairfield University

[3] Nigerian Linguistic Groups – Courtesy of Fairfield University

[4] Wealth distribution by State in Nigeria – Courtesy of BBC

[5] Female literacy by State in Nigeria – Courtesy of BBC

[6] Healthcare accessibility and distribution by State in Nigeria – Courtesy of BBC

[7] John Danforth – Wikipedia

[8] Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Rick Santorum's Political and Biblical Mistake – Huffington Post

Other references

Nigeria – Wikipedia

Perry-Castañeda Library - Map Collection – Nigeria – University of Texas at Austin

Federal Republic of Nigeria - "The Oil-Rich Cinderella State That Still Hasn't Quite Made It To The Ball" Julia Macina

Nigeria – A Divided Nation – BBC

CIA – World FactBook on Nigeria

The case for State law over religious guidance

Civic responsibility above religious beliefs

In the light of the tussles between religious beliefs and civil obligations, I could not have wished for a better reference for legal opinion than one that was part of the rejection of an appeal based on a sacking the appellant believed was religious discrimination.

A marriage guidance counsellor with Relate [1] – a secular relationships guidance organisation – refused to offer counselling to same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs which were Christian in inclination leading to his being relieved of his duties.

The UK has seen a number of cases of civil servants refusing to perform their objective work functions on the grounds of it prejudicing their beliefs and hence withholding public services from people who do not seem to conform to their standards or moral values.

The gravitas of religious leaders contemned

In this case the former archbishop of Canterbury, Lard Carey even made representations to the Lord Justice on this matter and there has been a certain Christian persecution complex that has been gaining activist fervour with the subtext that Christians are no more allowed to express themselves with conviction – the converse of which is the appearance of prejudice and bigotry in Christian attitudes that are less than communal and inclusive.

Lord Justice Laws made some very far-reaching statements that could prove useful in dealing with religious laws in Nigeria whilst give all citizens equal access to a uniformly accepted set of laws dispensing justice and protecting rights without depending on any belief system apart from plainly being a member of that society.

The legal case is made for completely keeping religion out of State, civil matters and the law, the full text of this judgement should for all purposes be required reading for any student of law and I liberally quote from the statements made in the article as written in the Guardian [2].

Justice cannot be given a religious tint

He said, “Legislation to protect views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified, it is an irrational idea and it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

The Archbishop called for a special panel of judges with a "proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues" to hear the case. He went on to say, recent court decisions involving Christians had used "dangerous" reasoning and this could lead to civil unrest.

This is not to suggest that the archbishop was intent on invoking a mob to run riot against judges that weigh the facts of cases before them objectively without the influence and prejudice of religious faith, but that could deny non-adherent justice if civil issues are adjudicated by a panel of clergy-like lords.

Uniform laws for all

The Lord Justice then went on to say, “We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

I do not think any stronger statement can be made for eliminating Sharia Law from being a part of the legal system in Nigeria on the basis that even in Northern Nigerian were the majority might be Muslim, all people do not share uniform religious beliefs.

"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

Taking religion out of civil society

This is where it gets untenable, if the people are to be free, the state has to think for itself and not be bound by religious laws over which there can be no reasoning or it can be subject to malevolent interpretation in the hands of those whose religious influence might not necessarily be commensurate with the required legal training to administer justice fairly and honestly.

Whilst Lord Carey was at liberty to say, “The description of religious faith in relation to sexual ethics as 'discriminatory' is crude and illuminates a lack of sensitivity to religious belief.” It can also be said that religious faith that cannot comprehend or tolerate difference in humanity is insensitive and inimical to societal cohesion.

In essence, religion must well be kept in the religious houses where the people congregate for worship and where the 'religious' people mix with other facets of society the character, personality and quality of the person by reason of their beliefs should not be obvious; adequate discretion must be exercised as to what you have faith in.

Source

[1] Relate | About Us

[2] Christian counsellor loses court fight over sacking | UK news | guardian.co.uk