What the Gay rights campaigners missed!

The ruling on Gay engagement as buggery and indecency is something that was expected and generally the feeling is that it is welcome in a deeply conservative society. The worst perfomer are the Gay rights activists who though they could influence our courts with messages from England, South Africa and even nearby borders.
First. nobody in Malawi believes that the two poor souls, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steve Monjeza did that on their own accord, and the emergence of well established lawyers raised eyebrows that these two average casual workers suddenly could afford legal representation when they barely could afford lunch.
Unfortunately with the current global information access, one can easily deduce the calculated test-the waters plan that later emerged with another wedding in Argentina and in Asia and similar attempts in Kenya.
The use of people without any public influence such as Chimbalanga and Monjeza showed how the camapigners view the views of Malawians and our society and something that can be easily fooled.
Today, very likely to spend long hours in the cooler have been the two poor people, while those shouting on their behalf continue to drive posh vehicles and drink coffeee while waiting for the next opportunity for the statement.
The question whether the two committed crimes by engaging in public does not need a gigantic queens to prove that. Laws are laws, even bad laws are supposed to be followed until they are repealed, going or advocating otherwise will be undermining the rule of law which in itself is a catastrophe Malawians already experienced in 31 years of dictatorship.
Again people campaigning for Gay rights in Africa should wake up and realise that while human rights are fundemental, not all rights can be enjoyed at the same time when the basic rights cannot be fulfilled.
Sexual related rights might be described as secondary unless they are life threatening like life sexual reproductive affecting the lives of women.
Africa at the moment is yet to fulfil many basic rights includind access to education, safe water, food and basic health.
It would be an insult for donors who argue in the name of minority rights becuase of under pressure from their rights campaigners to expect Government or ordinary Malawians to start paying more attention to rights related to choice or sexual gratification.
More ridiculous is the threat to cut off funding which save pregnant mothers, children and address issues such as HIV and Aids just becuase some two aldults wanted to test the defined morals of society.
I am not homophobic, but reality should hit the gay rights campaigners that democracy yes means a majority wishes and respecting the rights of minorities, but the minorities even in 49 USA States and almost 12 most developed nations do no enjoy absolute rights including right to marry.
Imposing or threatening Malawians for following up their constitution sounds hollow and stupid to the least and it will just make more Malawians hate and close up their ears.
For the Gay campaigners if they have enough resources let them invest in long term and real life changing situations in poor communities, when mor people are eduacted, have granted social welfare back up as they have in the United Kingdom or USA and can afford most basic necessities then it would be time to ask them for luxurious rights.
For many Malawians and Africans whose daily life is a struggle, they are still searching to enjoy basic rights that options on what form of sex is acceptable does not add any value to their lives.
People like Tatchell who is all white, need to find coureguos locals and transfer all the noise to them, may be then they will have people paying attention to their cause.
Campaigns led by foreigners in any soceity cannot succeed and for the next century, Britons should learn that the colonial history is over and Africans have capacity now to think and act as independent states.
Gay rights missed the reality in Africa and the longer they speak and intimidate, amid stories of corruption and bribes to Civil Society they will continue to create defiant society that will never open up to their views.!
I hope someone will one day talk to the two poor jailed fellas to reveal who pushed them and who paid them!


Imposing or threatening Malawians for following up their constitution...

But Malawi did not follow its constitution, you miss the point, for the constitution accepts that no one should be discriminated against because of their sexual preference! You have missed as much as the gay campaigners.
Unknown said…
@Parables Which section of our constitution talks about sexual preference? I want to read it.
Jimmy Kainja said…
@Fredrick Malawi has used outdated pre-independent laws to prosecute harmless people. Yet ARV smugglers gets away with a fine. These people are harmful to society: http://tinyurl.com/2wao95m
Unknown said…
Why is incest btwn 2 consenting adults a crime in England punishable by up to 14yrs IHL. In Massachusetts, USA it's up to 20 yrs IHL. It is illegal in almost all developed countries even if couple decide not to have children.
Unknown said…
Why is Gay Marriage illegal in England? Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 says that a marriage is void if the parties are not respectively male and female
Unknown said…
@parables The constitution of Malawi doesn't say "Sexual preference" it says "sex" and here in Malawi, that means Gender, male or female not Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual.
Unknown said…
Please leave us alone. Here in Malawi Men do not marry fellow men. We know that the two gentlemen were just used by some evil people. Just look at the way they are dressed, a piece worker and a house worker? The two should be ashamed of themselves.

I like the first verse of our national athem and it is my prayer that God will preserve our beloved nation and protect us from evil.

Oh God Bless our Land of Malawi.
Keep it a land peace.
Put down each and every enemy hunger disease, envy.
Bless our leader each and every one and mother Malawi!
I love readding, and thanks for your artical. ..............................
Anonymous said…
Section 20(1) of the constitution states that:

"Discrimination of any form is prohibited and ALL persons are, under any law, guaranteed equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status."

Frederick Bvalani...did Parables make the error you suggest? Article 2 says that all are free from discrimination"-- that is the point. ALL are not free from discrimination if some are punished for their biological sexual orientation. In effect, according to your reading, the Constitution says "ALL are free, but not X" which is a logical contradition.
Unknown said…
Biological sexual orientation is fictitious. You and I know that. The gay gene theory was disproved. I will wait until I see a gay dog or another mammal that is gay or is God (or nature) discriminatory too.
Why does the UK or US law discriminate against those born with an "incest gene" or a "marijuana gene" or a "cocaine gene" or a "heroine gene"?
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
What confusion is being spouted in response to this post! Biological/rooted-in-life does not just mean "genetic". And yes, the genome theory is debatable. But that wasn't the point: Mr Bvalani fails to address the main fact that Malawi has a constitution that "prohibits" discrimination, yet a legal system that hunts in a discrminatory manner. What a contradiction! God is not discriminatory--what a blasphemous suggestion--scientists have studied same sex behaviour in animals and this is well documented. Unfortunately, Mr Bvalani seems unaware of this too and bases his wisdom upon ignorance of the real world. And the US and UK do not discriminate against those with drug and incest genes. Such an assertion not only misrepresents gene research but also misunderstands the countries concerned. Where do these fictional ideas come from? Mr Bvalani seems to have been deceived dreadfully!
Unknown said…
Homosexuality is a sin and a crime just like drug use and incest are. UK marriage law prohibits same sex marriage, isn't that 'discrimination'? Most US states prohibit gay marriage. One day western countries will decide incest btwn adults isn't a crime, will we be expected to follow suit too?
I know how street kids and other disadvantaged pple like the two who hv bn arrested are being enticed w money in Malawi. You can't tell me they were born gay. No.
Anonymous said…
Dear Mr Bvalani, you rant and you rave and never answer any point. No, Western societies are not more likely than African societies to condone incest: they learnt from African culture (Egyptian) that incest is genetically inadvisable. This fact is behind many incest taboos (all over the world). Do you really know how money is enticing the under-privileged? Or do you, yet again, only know the hyped up stories that filter through the press? Ultimately, all that has been asked of Malawi is to show humanity for two human beings. Sadly, Malawi, as represented by your point-of-view, aspires to a backward Christianity that is unintelligent, distanced from the Son that supposedly shines on it. The greatest sin in Malawi belongs to those who want to punish, throw the first stone, and Judas-like, betray the humanitarian principles of Christ.
MrK said…
Excellent blog. I will add it to the links on my own. :) By the way, I am not gay, but I believe that the state has no right to interfere in the private lives of citizens.

The real question should have been - why wasn't Malawi's legal system allowed to follow it's own course? This pardon keeps everying the same. Homosexuality is still illegal in Malawi. The Penal Code has not been challenged or changed.

The truth is that Malawi's Constitution, through Article 20 provides ample protection against discrimination.


Chapter 4

Equality 20. -

1. Discrimination of persons in any form is prohibited and all persons are, under any law, guaranteed equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds of race, colour, *sex*, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality, ethnic or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status.

2. Legislation may be passed addressing inequalities in society and prohibiting discriminatory practices and the propagation of such practices and may render such practices criminally punishable by the courts.

(From the NyasaTimes: Malawi law which criminalizes homosexuality is invalid –rights lawyer.)

If the law had taken it's course, it is likely that the verdict would have been overturned on appeal to the High Court, the penal code provisions banning homosexuality would have automatically become unconstitutional, and they would have been scrapped. In effect, homosexuality would have become legal in Malawi. Or there would not have been specific laws against it, as is in all non-British former colonies (like the DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, etc.).

The truth is that this case should have been preceded by a general public discussion - what does it mean to be gay, does it affect the lifestyle of anyone who isn't gay, etc.

This does however go to measures of sovereignty. In this case, like many others, donor aid is used to coerce the government on the issue of domestic and foreign policy. Some months ago, certain members of the British intelligence establishment (Brig. Geoffrey van Orden, MEP) tried to use the suspension of aid to force the government of Malawi not to extend a loan to the government of Zimbabwe.

Malawi is a rich land, it should not depend on donor aid at all. It has place for tea and coffee plantations, it has lots of fresh water, it should produce everything it needs and trade the rest. It should tax to the hilt all the foreign corporations doing business in Malawi, and use the money to support Malawian farmers and manufacturers to set up their own wealth generating businesses.

I have to admit that I am not as familiar with the economy of Malawi as I am with that of Zambia, but in Zambia there is a lot of money left on the table by not taxing the mines.

Anyway, my own blog is here.
Unknown said…
MrK, Let's just agree to disagree bcoz if you had read the earlier comments you would have read that I said 'sex' means male or female not 'sexual or female'. When I am filling a form and the caption is 'sex', I don't write 'straight', I write 'male'. HOMOSEXUALITY IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF MALAWI, YOU PEOPLE WANT US TO CHANGE THEM TO LEGALIZE IT AND WE DON'T WANT. That's the issue here. What you are looking for from the courts is an activist judge who legislates from the bench to rule in favour of homosexuality but laws are made in parliament not at the courts. We can argue endlessly but this is the truth.

Popular posts from this blog

Ousmane Owen Munthali 1987-2015, the best of memories

You cant be wrong about Malawi